[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VIOLENCE ON THE BORDER: KEEPING U.S. PERSONNEL SAFE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-51
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-598 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Art Arthur, Staff Director, Subcommittee on National Security
Sarah Vance, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 9, 2015................................ 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Gregory B. Starr, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Ambassador William H. Moser, Deputy Director, Bureau of Overseas
Buildings Operations, U.S. Department of State
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Ms. Sue Saarnio, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western
Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Mr. Robert L. Harris, Director, Joint Task Force-West, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Mr. Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council,
American Federation of Government Employees
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
APPENDIX
Mexico 2015 Crime and Safety Report: Mexico City................. 56
Letter to Congressman Cummings from Alejandro Estivill........... 72
Statement of Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney.................... 73
VIOLENCE ON THE BORDER: KEEPING U.S. PERSONNEL SAFE
----------
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Jordan, Amash,
Gosar, DesJarlais, Farenthold, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis,
Mulvaney, Buck, Walker, Blum, Hice, Russell, Carter, Grothman,
Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay, Lynch, Connolly,
Cartwright, Kelly, Plaskett, DeSaulnier, Welch, Lujan Grisham,
and Cuellar.
Chairman Chaffetz. Good morning. The Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform will come to order. And without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time.
We have a very important hearing today. Appreciate you
joining us. The title of this hearing, ``Violence on the
Border: Keeping the U.S. Personnel Safe.''
The United States is Mexico's largest trading partner and
largest foreign investor. Mexico is the United States' third
largest trading partner after Canada and China and is this
country's second largest foreign supplier of petroleum.
We have a lot of familial ties. We have people who have
loved ones there. It's a great place to travel. It's one of the
more beautiful places on the planet, a lot of recreation. A lot
of reasons, good reasons to interact with the good people of
Mexico and to enjoy one of the most amazing countries that is
on the border of the United States of America. It is one of the
busiest and most economically important borders in the world,
with nearly 1 million legitimate travelers and nearly $1
billion worth of goods legally crossing the border each day.
But Mexico is also a dangerous place. I would argue it's
one of the most dangerous places on the planet. To understand
how dangerous it is, we don't have to look further than the
State Department's own warnings about travel to Mexico.
Specifically, the State Department warns, ``Gun battles between
rival criminal organizations or with Mexican authorities have
occurred in broad daylight on streets. Criminal organizations
have created road blocks to prevent the military and police
from responding to criminal activity. Carjacking and highway
robbery are serious problems in many parts of the border
region, and U.S. citizens have been murdered in such
incidents.''
According to the United States Department of State's Bureau
of Diplomatic Security, Nuevo Laredo's municipal police was
suspended in July of 2011, ``among allegations of large-scale
corruption.'' Benjamin Galvan Gomez, who had been the mayor of
Nuevo Laredo until 2013, disappeared on the night of February
27, 2014, near his house, along with businessman Miguel Angel
Ortiz.
Prosecutors say that Galvan was kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo,
killed and dumped near Monterrey about 135 miles south to the
state of Nuevo Leon. Their bodies were found in the trunk of a
car on March 1, 2014, according to press reports. In June of
2012, a bomb exploded in Galvan's parking spot at City Hall,
killing one bystander and injuring others.
The month before, cartel members left the decapitated
bodies of 14 people in a van in front of City Hall accompanied
by the banner that claimed to be from Joaquin El Chapo Guzman,
leader of the Sinaloa cartel. The banner threatened Galvan and
accused him of working with the Zetas.
In February 2013, the police chief of Nuevo Laredo
disappeared, and his two brothers were found dead in the trunk
of a car in Nuevo Laredo. Just yesterday--I happen to be a
member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and
further to the south there's an article out about an LDS
Mission President. Somebody from the United States, actually
from my district, going down and serving a religious mission
who was shot during a robbery in Mexico. It is a violent place,
a dangerous place.
The lawlessness is a direct result of drug cartels
operating in Mexico evolving into massive criminal
organizations. These cartels have expanded their operations
into kidnapping, extortion, and murder. Unfortunately, this is
not new news. It has been going on for some time. According to
the National Border Patrol Councils--we'll hear testimony
today--``The official death toll from cartel violence in Mexico
is 60,000. However, the unofficial death toll in Mexico is over
120,000 killed and another 27,000 missing or presumed dead.''
Mexico ranked 103rd out of 175 countries in Transparency
International's Corruption Perceptions Index, which ranks
countries and terrorists based on how corrupt their public
sector is perceived to be. It's in company of Algeria, China,
Bolivia, Moldova, and Niger. According to the Institute for
Economics and Peace ranking of countries from least to most
violent, Mexico was 144 out of 162 countries surveyed, being
similar to Lebanon and Colombia and others in terms of violence
in 2015.
Today, the Department still operates nine consulates in an
embassy in Mexico City. Two of those consulates, just south of
the United States border, are of particular interest in today's
hearing. Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, where I've been able to
visit the Nuevo Laredo facility, both consulates operate
directly across the Rio Grande River from the United States
despite the State Department's warning, ``Violent criminal
activity occurs more frequently along the northern border.''
In attempt to approve safety of our personnel in those
consulates, the Department is set to build new consulate
compounds in both Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo. Despite these
plans, construction has been long delayed. Both of these
facilities are being constructed under the Department's design
excellence initiative.
Design excellence takes longer than the standard embassy
design, which has been used successfully by State in previous
years. Several independent studies have gone and shown that
they build them faster and less expensive. Unfortunately, the
State Department, under President Obama and Secretary Clinton,
changed the way we do this. They're now more expensive, they're
slower, and consequently, we keep more people in danger for
long periods of time.
Given State's own warnings about the danger Mexico poses to
U.S. citizens and officials, it seems that building these
facilities should be a priority; yet, it has been a fiasco over
the last few years. Construction will not be completed until
November 2017 in Nuevo Laredo and until spring of 2019 in
Matamoros.
We had a chance, Stacey Plaskett and I, had a chance to
visit the embassy in Mexico City. State Department entered into
a contract in Mexico City to purchase from Colgate-Palmolive a
$120 million piece of land to build a new embassy. We have paid
roughly half of that, $60 million to Colgate-Palmolive. But the
transfer does not complete until Colgate-Palmolive cleans up
the site of all contaminants as approved by the Mexican
environmental authorities.
But the place that they decided to buy--and we have
documentation of this--was a brownfield. It was dirty. It was
toxic. It was not ready to be built on. They thought they could
clean it up, but it continues to be so dirty today that the
Mexican Government will not approve it because it's too toxic.
So we have an older facility that's not adequately
fortified. We have massive growth--massive growth in the number
of personnel that they want to go into this embassy, and the
construction costs have jumped 38 percent to $763 million. In
fact, if you look at the total costs, including the site
acquisition, design and construction, we're looking at $943
million to build this embassy that is now years behind.
Part of the reason that increase that's happening there is
the number of desks. The number of desks projected at the
beginning was going to be 891; now it's 1,335. Why the
increased number of desks? In large part because of the
security problems in Mexico. Yes, we do increase the amount of
trade, but we need more security personnel to do the
assessments from all the various agencies. This puts the total
at roughly $706,000 per desk.
Now, the original embassy in Mexico City was scheduled to
be completed in February of 2019, but we're looking at least
middle of 2020, if not further. It has still--still to this day
not been approved by the Mexican Government. The money has been
paid, but we're not able to move into that new facility. And
it's totally unacceptable.
The State Department also recently indicated it plans to
take away danger pay allocations for U.S. personnel who have
been receiving it in Mexico. Danger pay is additional money
provided to State Department employees who are willing to work
in a particularly dangerous area. It defies logic for the State
Department to warn Americans about the high risk of danger--
high risk in danger and traveling in Mexico but to end danger
pay for diplomats here.
Behind the scenes, the State Department says, ``Oh, don't
worry about it. Don't worry about it. They'll be taken care
of.'' Having traveled to Mexico a couple of times now and
talking to State Department personnel, it's right at the top of
their plate. Right at the top of their issue. Don't take away
our danger pay.
You have people who work in the consulate in Nuevo Laredo
directly across the border who have literally just a couple of
square miles of which they can move. I've talked to the State
Department personnel who cannot freely go out and shop or go to
a movie or do anything other than stay on that compound because
of the extreme violence and danger, and yet the State
Department wants to take away that danger pay.
We have people who are shaking their heads saying, ``Oh,
that is silly. That's ridiculous.'' But you know what? How
ironic that the House Republicans are fighting to help keep the
danger pay for the State Department employees. And they want to
change that in Mexico. And that doesn't make sense to us. We're
going to explore that.
Crime in northern Mexico has already impacted U.S. assets
in the country. On June 7, a truck leaving the United States
consulate in Matamoros was hijacked by armed robbers. The
hijackers stole more than 11,500 U.S. border crossing cards,
which are visas that can be used to enter the United States.
Some of these were recovered, but nearly 2,000 of these cards
and a dozen passport cards are still missing.
The hijacking of this truck should come as no surprise to
the State Department. The Department's own travel warning makes
it clear that, ``No highway route through Tamaulipas,'' which
is the state, which includes Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, ``are
considered safe.''
American assets in the sky are also at risk. In June,
members of the Zeta cartel were shot at at a Customs and Border
Patrol helicopter, hitting it twice and forcing it to land near
Laredo, Texas. I've seen that helicopter. I talked to the
pilot. I talked to the other gentleman who was on that
helicopter. They were on the United States side of the border
but taking fire from the Mexican side of the border, a pretty
brazen attack on a U.S. helicopter doing patrol on the United
States side of the border.
Previous to that there were attacks on Mexican helicopters
from drug cartel members. It actually took down a helicopter in
another part of Mexico. While no one was injured, this attack
made it clear that cartels have no reservations about expanding
the scope of their violence on the American side of the border.
Danger and violence in Mexico is apparently not much of a
priority for this administration.
Secretary Kerry, I understand he's got a busy job. But here
we have one of the most important partners; the most important
relationships that we have in the world is with Mexico. And in
the 29 months since Secretary Kerry has been the Secretary of
State, how many times has he visited Mexico? One time. It's not
a priority for this administration.
Instead, they're taking away danger pay. They're trying to
make the case that, ``Oh, it's all safe. Everything's good
here.'' And yet, I've got an LDS Mission president who was shot
yesterday. I've got border patrol agents that are being shot
out of the sky. I've got people who know that there are
violent--by the tens of thousands of people being killed on
that side of the border.
And we, as the United States of America, need to do better.
We have to do better. They're our next door neighbors. There's
over 100 million people there. That demands a little bit more
attention from the Secretary than one quick visit down there.
It makes me wonder whether they want Americans to think things
are fine and safe for America, and it's hard to understand why
so little diplomatic effort had been there.
We have a lot to discuss today. Very frustrated with the
State Department and the requests made on July 15. We had sent
a letter. It barely goes on to the second page. We had four
asks. And on Friday, before this hearing, going into Labor Day
weekend, State Department dumped on our desk 110,000 documents.
Couldn't do a rolling production. Couldn't allow their staff to
pour through this.
But this is how the State Department acts with the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. So we'll digest
that. But to dump 110,000 documents, honest. Friday, right
before Labor Day, we're coming into this hearing. You all knew
that we had this. Come on. Really? You expect that to go
unnoticed? Unacceptable. Unacceptable.
My question for the panel today, do we have all the
documents? I want you to certify and tell me that I have
everything I asked for. And that will be one of my first
questions.
Yield to now the gentleman from--our ranking member, Mr.
Cummings, from Maryland, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing today. And as I listen to
you, I'm hoping that our witnesses listen very carefully. I
think you raised some legitimate concerns and I'm hoping that
they will address them.
I also want to thank Congressman Vela, the ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, for being
a leader on this issue and for promoting aggressive action to
protect the United States and our diplomatic corps overseas.
Drug cartel violence in Mexico threatens American and
Mexican citizens and their families on both sides--on both
sides of the border. It also negatively impacts our important
bilateral trade relationship with Mexico. Combatting the
violence and stabilizing this region needs to be a top priority
for both countries.
Congressman Vela's position is that the consulates should
remain open to support American citizens and economic interests
on both sides of the border. And I agree with him, and I find
his argument quite persuasive.
Closing U.S. consulates in Mexico will simply destabilize
the region making our borders less safe. Consulates in Mexico
play a critical role in implementing Laredo initiative, which
is our Nation's $2.5 billion investment in disrupting organized
groups, institutionalizing the rule of law, and building
stronger communities.
Many of our U.S. consulates also house our Federal law
enforcement efforts to combat the drug trade and strengthen
border security. In addition, many U.S. companies, including
DuPont, Tyco, and General Electric, have significant business
interests in Mexico. These other businesses provide 65,000 jobs
in Matamoros, our consular district alone, and they depend on
the support provided by U.S. consulates. U.S. consulates also
provide crucial services to U.S. citizens residing in and
visiting Mexico.
Our diplomatic relationship with Mexico is a critical tool
for stabilizing the region. We need to strengthen this
diplomatic relationship, especially in regions that need it
most, not damage it by closing these consulates, as some have
suggested. I believe Mexico should do more to enhance security
in the region. But the U.S. also has a role to play, such as
stemming the flow of guns.
Congressman Vela has suggested establishing secure economic
zones in northern Mexico similar to those that have already
been implemented in southern Mexico. These zones would include
a joint economic plan that would provide more opportunities for
communities on both sides of the border. These ideas deserve
serious consideration.
We must ensure that Mexico is doing everything it can to
root out the corruption that plagues law enforcement and civil
institutions in order to effectively combat drug cartels.
Greater stability will encourage more economic investment.
On our side of the border the United States must do more to
stem the flow of guns into Mexico. In March, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reported that more than
100,000--more than 100,000 guns were recovered in Mexico and
submitted for tracing from 2009 to 2014. Of those 100,000 guns,
70 percent of them originated in the United States. Guns that
are entering Mexico are being trafficked in from the United
States.
This is one reason I'm proud to cosponsor with my good
friend, Congresswoman Maloney, the Gun Trafficking Prevention
Act, which is being reintroduced today on a bipartisan basis by
our colleague, Mrs. Maloney. If we can stem illegal gun
trafficking in the United States, there's no doubt the positive
effects will be seen by our neighbors to the south.
Finally, let me say this: The United States must take all
appropriate steps to ensure that our diplomats are safe and
fully and fairly compensated. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman,
that that must happen. This includes building modern, secure,
diplomatic facilities. Construction plans are underway in
Mexico, Matamoros, and Nuevo Laredo to build new diplomatic
facilities that will house Marine barracks to ensure even
greater protection of our personnel.
I understand that the State Department is changing how it
pays employees serving in dangerous and difficult environments.
I appreciate the Department's efforts to use resources
effectively and consistent with the law. But I believe no
employees who serve on the front lines abroad should face
reductions in pay.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how to
further improve the safety of U.S. personnel while promoting
our longstanding and mutually-beneficial relationship with
Mexico.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Chairman Chaffetz. And I would like to associate myself
with your comments about some of our colleagues, Mr. Vela, as
well as Mr. Cuellar, who is here and joining us on the stand.
My understanding is that Congressman Vela would also like to
participate with us today.
Even those these two gentlemen are not on our committee, we
have had a tradition of allowing and asking unanimous consent
to allow people to sit in on these hearings. So I would ask
unanimous consent that our colleagues, Congressman Filemon Vela
and Congressman Henry Cuellar be allowed to fully participate
in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We appreciate the perspective from these two gentlemen.
They live in great proximity to the issues of things that we're
going to be talking about today, and they've been invaluable to
me in providing a good, I think, balanced perspective. And
appreciate their passion on this issue and their care for the
loved ones that are there in that area. Appreciate their
perspective. Glad they're joining us today.
We'll now recognize our first panel of witnesses, but I
would like to tell members that I will hold the record open for
5 legislative days for any members who would like to submit a
written statement.
Chairman Chaffetz. We're pleased to be joined by Mr.
Gregory Starr, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of the
Diplomatic Security at the United States Department of State.
Ambassador William Moser is the Principal Deputy Director
of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations at the United
States Department of State. And he has a long storied history
at the State Department. Appreciate your service and thank you
for joining us here today.
Ms. Sue Saarnio--did I pronounce it properly? I hope so--is
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs
at the United States Department of State.
Mr. Robert Harris is the Director of the Joint Task Force-
West at the United States Customs and Border Protection.
And Mr. Brandon Judd is the President of the National
Border Patrol Council of the American Federation of Government
Employees. We thank you all for being here.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn
before they testify. So if you will please rise and raise your
right hand.
Thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate
limiting your verbal testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire
written statement will be made part of the record.
Mr. Starr, we will start with you and then we will simply
go through and get to the question portion of the hearing.
Mr. Starr, you're now recognized for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. STARR
Mr. Starr. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and
distinguished committee members, good morning. And thank you
for your invitation to appear today to discuss the security
situation near U.S. consulates at the border in Mexico. We
share your concerns regarding the security of the U.S.
personnel in Mexico, and I look forward to discussing these
issues with you today.
Our national interests often require us to serve in
dangerous places around the world. However, it is clear that
the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Mexico are exceptionally
important platforms for diplomatic and consular engagement to
advance our national interests.
I was in Mexico a few weeks ago and can bear witness to the
hard work and dedication of the U.S. personnel serving on both
sides of the border. I also saw the challenging circumstances
in which many of our people operate. Environments such as
Mexico involve constantly shifting threats that require
comprehensive planning, agile decisionmaking, and deft
diplomacy. Most of all, they require us to be present, fully
engaged, and 100 percent committed to the security of our
people and our facilities.
In Mexico, we engage with and seek support where necessary
from a host government that recognizes Mexican and American
vital interests are linked and that bilateral cooperation is
required to counter the threats posed by transnational
criminals. In every incident, threat, and attack in Mexico,
this only underscores the continued importance of the strong
bilateral relations and the comprehensive security cooperation.
Our embassy and consulates in Mexico play a critical role
in providing services to American citizens, issuing visas, and
implementing key foreign policy objectives. I work closely with
my colleagues in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations as
the Department builds diplomatic missions in Mexico to increase
safety and security. These new facilities are vital platforms
for diplomacy, all of which will meet the rigorous Overseas
Security Policy Board standards for safety and security.
During my recent visit to some of the border consulates, I
walked with the principal officers and regional security
officers to view the additional security measures taken and
augmented host country security presence protecting our
facilities. These protective features allow us to operate
necessary programs that strengthen Mexico police capacity,
reinforce critical law enforcement cooperation, and improve
security along our southern border.
These consulates also aid the expansive bilateral trade
that supports both countries totaling over $500 billion
annually. But it is simply not enough to improve physical
security. We are also training the Foreign Service community on
how to better respond in these environments.
All officers under chief of mission authority at our border
post in Monterrey are required to take the Foreign Affairs
Counter Threat training course, also known as FACT, which
teaches them hard security skills. As a result, personnel in
our missions are better prepared for operating in challenging
environments, and we are working towards making FACT training
universal for all Foreign Service personnel at our posts
overseas regardless of the threat levels.
I recognize the hardships that our people and their
families endure in such environments. It is a testament to
their courage, their commitment, and the important work that
they are accomplishing abroad. Having served over 30 years in
the Foreign Service, I understand wholeheartedly the sacrifices
our people make. It is simply woven into the fabric of what
uniquely defines the Foreign Service community. Knowing the
challenges ahead, they willingly and courageously step up to
fill the important positions that we have in Mexico and
throughout the world.
I look forward to working with Congress to ensure our
personnel are serving abroad safely and that they continue to
have safe platforms for advancing our national interests. And I
want to thank Congress for the resources and support that you
have provided over the years, and we look forward to your
continuing support in years ahead.
Thank you. And I'll be glad to answer any questions that
you have.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Starr follows:]
[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following
website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costs-
and-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul]
Chairman Chaffetz. Ambassador Moser, you're now recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR WILLIAM H. MOSER
Mr. Moser. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
Cummings, and members of the committee. And thank you very much
for the invitation to appear before the committee today to
discuss the U.S. consulates in northern Mexico.
Security is a top priority for the Bureau of Overseas
Building Operations. Since the enactment of the Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act, SECCA, of 1999, OBO has
completed 122 more secure facilities and have an additional 39
in design or under construction. These facilities provide more
than 35,000 people with a safer workplace.
Constructing secure diplomatic facilities in Mexico
underscores our commitment to strengthening our bilateral
relationship and reflects increased U.S.-Mexican commitments to
issues such as migration, counter-narcotics, trade, and border
security.
Over the last 7 years, OBO has constructed new Consulate
General facilities in Mexico in Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and
most recently in Monterrey. Together, these facilities provide
safer work space for over 770 staff.
Our work continues in northern Mexico with the new U.S.
Consulate General in Nuevo Laredo under construction and
expected to be completed in 2017. This new consulate will
provide workspace for approximately 150 staff. Another U.S.
Consulate General in Matamoros is in design and expected to be
awarded for construction this fall and completed in 2019. This
new Consulate General is planned to accommodate approximately
197 staff.
We have an active and aggressive site search underway in
Mexico to meet our commitments. We are under contract for new
Consulate General sites in Nogales, Guadalajara, Hermosillo,
and anticipate closing on these sites in 2015 and 2016. We are
also in the process of evaluating sites in Merida to replace
the existing facilities.
Additionally, a new U.S. Embassy in Mexico City is
currently in design and includes office space for over 1,300
staff members, a U.S. Marine security guard residence, and a
consular area with over 75 teller windows.
OBO works closely with Diplomatic Security every step of
the way on all of our projects. OBO and Diplomatic Security
physical, technical, and industrial security specialists are
involved in project development from early site selection,
planning, design, construction, and through occupancy. All U.S.
diplomatic facilities built by OBO meet the Department's
standards for security and life safety.
By 2020, we expect to have constructed or broken ground on
over nine new diplomatic facilities in Mexico that will serve
as secure platforms from which to conduct diplomacy and to
fulfill foreign policy objectives for many years to come.
And I'm happy to answer your questions at any time.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Moser follows:]
[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following
website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costs-
and-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul]
Chairman Chaffetz. Ms. Saarnio, you are now recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SUE SAARNIO
Ms. Saarnio. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today.
As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State responsible for
our Mexico portfolio in the Western Hemisphere Bureau, I want
to assure you, as my colleagues have, that the safety and
security of our colleagues in Mexico are our top priority.
I started my diplomatic career in Mexico City, and I would
be proud to serve in Mexico again. I'd like to share with you
today the work that the State Department performs to assist
American citizens in Mexico's border region. I will highlight
the measures we're taking to enhance security in Mexico through
strong, bilateral cooperation, while ensuring the safety of
U.S. personnel, particularly of those serving in the U.S.
consulates along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The State Department closely examines all threats to our
diplomats, locally-employed colleagues, and U.S. facilities.
The Department assesses daily the risks the U.S. personnel face
as they do their jobs in a constantly-shifting landscape. We
seek a balance between the critically-important work our people
do, including the consular services provided to American
citizens in Mexico, and the inherent risk of working in a
challenging security environment.
At every step, we work to ensure the security and safety of
all American citizens, but particularly our diplomatic
colleagues in Mexico. We remain vigilant and we analyze
carefully new potential threats.
Our embassy and our consulate personnel meet frequently
with Mexican Federal, state, and local counterparts to discuss
these concerns and to assure that all appropriate measures are
being taken to protect our personnel and U.S. citizens of
business.
We have systems in place that allow us to communicate
rapidly and effectively with U.S. citizens when the security
situation changes. Our travel warning, country-specific
information, and security messages provide U.S. citizens with
our best assessment of the risks they may face when traveling
to certain regions in Mexico.
The United States and Mexico share a mutual investment in
security and prosperity. The State Department, along with key
U.S. Government agencies, such as the Justice Department, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and
others work with the Mexican Government through the Merida
Initiative to combat transnational criminal organizations and
to protect our citizens from the crime and violence these
organizations generate.
Because of our robust and ongoing dialogue with Mexico on
security issues, Mexican Federal authorities have taken action
to improve security conditions and reduce violence,
particularly in the state of Tamaulipas, where the United
States Government is represented at the border consulates of
Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.
The bilateral economic relationship between our two
countries is huge. Indeed, the two-way trade topped $550
billion in 2014. Eighty percent of that trade crossed the U.S.-
Mexico land border. Our integrated economic relationship
supports thousands of jobs in both countries and hundreds of
thousands of people legally cross our border each day. Mexico
remains the top foreign destination for travelers from the
United States. In fact, we estimate that on any given day there
are 1.5 million American citizens in Mexico.
Our U.S. Consulate General in Nuevo Laredo, and Matamoros
in particular, support this vibrant relationship through visa
services for tourists, students, and workers. They provide
critical services to the some 138,000 U.S. citizens living in
their consular districts, and to thousands of U.S. visitors and
the commercial travelers.
These services include passport issuances and renewals,
issuances of consular reports of birth abroad, providing
information on voter registration, and offering notary services
for documents to be used in the United States. The consulates
also provide emergency services to American citizens who are
arrested, kidnapped, or face temporary destitution in Mexico.
We share the committee's concern about the levels of
violence in certain areas in Mexico, and we assess the overall
environment on a daily basis. We believe that U.S. interests
are best protected by maintaining a strong presence on the
ground in Mexico and continuing our close law enforcement and
security relationship. We review and monitor the situation
daily and have been taking all appropriate steps to ensure the
safety of American citizens, including government personnel.
I want to assure you, this is and will continue to be a top
priority for me, my leadership, and the Department.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Saarnio follows:]
[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following
website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costs-
and-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul]
Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Harris, you're now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. HARRIS
Mr. Harris. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and
distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the
Department of Homeland Security's Southern Border and
Approaches Campaign's Joint Task Force-West, which represents
the next evolution of border security on our Nation's southern
border.
I assumed the position of director of the newly-created
pilot joint task force on December 15, 2014. Prior to this
position, I was the first then-commander of Customs and Border
Protection's South Texas campaign where I served from February
2012 to December 2014 in Laredo, Texas.
I've held numerous executive leadership positions in my
more than 30-year Border Patrol career, to include serving as
chief patrol agent of the Laredo, Texas, and Spokane,
Washington, Border Patrol sectors; chief of intelligence
operations and as the deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol
where I led and managed the transition of the U.S. Border
Patrol into the then newly-created U.S. Customs and Border
Protection in 2003.
I want to take a moment to speak to you about the Southern
Border and Approaches Campaign and the Joint Task Force-West.
This campaign directs DHS resources in a collaborative fashion
with pre-identified, component-validated, Secretary-approved
targets, spanning a range of threats and challenges, including
the terrorist threat, illegal immigration, drug, human, and
arms trafficking, and the illicit financing of all of these
operations.
I'm working hand in hand with my counterparts, Vice Admiral
William Dean Lee from the U.S. Coast Guard, director of Joint
Task Force-East; and Special Agent in Charge David Marwell, HSI
special agent in charge director of joint task force
investigations.
Although we are in our early stages, we are working to
coordinate DHS forces and leverage Department of Defense
international, State, local, and tribal resources to combat the
transnational criminal organizations who exploit
vulnerabilities in our southern border and approaches. This
level of integration among DHS component agencies is
unprecedented since the creation of the department in 2003.
The Joint Task Force-West will secure the southern border
and its approaches through departmental unity of effort,
thereby integrating and prioritizing DHS security operations.
Our five primary objectives in Joint Task Force-West are,
integrate and align our intelligence capabilities;
institutionalize integrated counternetwork operations to
identify and target transnational criminal organizations and
their illicit networks; prioritize investigative efforts to
disrupt, degrade, and dismantle transnational criminal
organizations and illicit networks; strengthen international
prosecutorial and deterrent efforts against transnational
criminal organizations enterprises and significant activity
impacting the Joint Task Force-West joint operating area; and
finally, advance the Joint Task Force-West mission through
unified communication and messaging efforts.
The structure of the Joint Task Force-West focuses cross-
departmental and integrated counternetwork operations on
strategic objectives across four geographic corridors:
California, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas, and South Texas.
The Joint Task Force-West will focus on creating and
implementing a standardized methodology for identifying and
prioritizing strategic targets based on national security,
public safety, and border security threats.
We have begun the threat prioritization process by
developing a concept of operations plan and courses of action
for each corridor. The goal will be to expedite integrated
counternetwork operations against a list of prioritized
transnational criminal organizations across the southwest
border on October 1, 2015. This has never before been done in a
coordinated and integrated means across the entire southwest
border.
These corridor operations will expand our ability to impact
illicit networks beyond the border from their point of origin
to destination point through integrated DHS and interagency
cooperation. These joint efforts will result in consequence
application to identified targets through investigation,
enforcement, and administrative actions. The joint task force
framework also enables DHS to streamline our collaboration,
innovation, and integration with other government entities.
For example, in the South Texas corridor, we have taken
steps to move past collaboration and into the integration of
intelligence, investigation, and interdiction resources, and
have conducted counternetwork operations against prioritized
threats. This new partnership further reduces institutional
barriers and duplication of effort, provides for a unity of
effort understanding the threat network, and enhances our
ability to dismantle these networks.
I am confident that moving forward the Southern Border and
Approaches Campaign will effectively disrupt, degrade, and
dismantle threats in a strategic and coordinated manner like
never before and improve our ability to combat criminal
organizations who present a threat to our efforts to secure the
southern border.
I look forward to answering any questions.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following
website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costs-
and-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul]
Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Judd, you're now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD
Mr. Judd. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
Cummings.
In June, a CBP helicopter was shot and forced down in
Laredo, Texas. To many in Washington, this was a wakeup call to
the increasing violence on the Mexican border. Unfortunately,
this was far from an isolated incident.
For example, in 2014, less than 100 miles from the
helicopter shooting, Border Patrol Agent Javier Vega was
murdered defending his family from two armed illegal immigrants
while on a fishing trip. One of the murderers had been deported
four times, the other twice for illegally crossing the border.
Twenty years ago, and about the time I joined the Border
Patrol, the Zeta, Sinaloa, Gulf, and Knights Templar cartels
did not exist or were not widely known. Although narcotics and
illegal immigrant smuggling were conducted by organized crime,
it was not nearly on the level we see the cartels operating
today. There were even relatively small-time players conducting
smuggling operations within a given area of operations.
Although violence could and did erupt, the older generation
of smugglers took the long view. They would rather risk losing
a load of narcotics to the Border Patrol than opening fire on
agents. Violence brought unwanted attention on both sides of
the border, and that was bad for business. This all began to
unravel in the early 2000s with the emergence of the drug
cartels.
These cartels are well organized, heavily armed, and
pathologically violent. To give you a sense of the violence,
the official death toll--as you quoted earlier--the official
death toll from the cartel violence in Mexico is 60,000. This
is more than the United States military lost in Vietnam.
However, the unofficial death toll in Mexico is over 120,000
killed and another 27,000 missing and presumed dead.
In Mexico, the cartels kill without hesitation or fear of
prosecution. In May of this year, cartel members shot down a
Mexican Army helicopter in the state of Jalisco. Why would we
expect them to behave any differently on the U.S.-Mexico
border?
The second factor driving the increased violence is the
rise of criminal aliens. When I first started in the Border
Patrol, if you were a citizen of Mexico, we simply took down
your information, took a single fingerprint, loaded you on a
bus and drove you to the border for repatriation. It was a
revolving-door border enforcement policy with cases where
agents often arrested the same individual twice in the same
shift.
Three positive developments, however, changed this. The
first was the change in the way we collected information.
Instead of just capturing one fingerprint, we began taking the
prints of all ten fingers and running the prints of those
arrested against all criminal databases kept in the United
States Department of Justice. We were then able to identify
with certainty criminal aliens attempting to reenter the United
States or to identify those who were arrested during interior
patrol activities.
The second positive step was the implementation of the
various consequence delivery systems used in certain places
along the border, and the third was Immigration and Customs
Enforcement's criminal deportation program.
I want to be very clear on this, especially given the
recent incendiary comments about who is crossing the border and
the assertions that the border is far safer than it has ever
been: In 2014 ICE deported 177,000 convicted criminals. Of this
number, 91,000 were arrested by the Border Patrol trying to
illegally reenter this country.
To put this figure in perspective, in 2014 the Border
Patrol apprehended and arrested just under 500,000 illegal
immigrants. Meaning that one in every five arrests last year by
the Border Patrol was a criminal alien. Almost 50 percent of
the criminal aliens supported in 2014 were convicted of
aggravated felonies. These charges include murder, rape, sexual
assault of a child, and drug and weapons trafficking. These are
not petty criminals, and approximately 60 percent of those
deported last year had already been deported at least once
before.
This is the challenge we are facing at the border today.
There are those who will point to lower apprehension rates and
tell you the border is secure. Border Patrol agents, however,
throughout this nation will tell you the border is not secure
and the southwest border certainly is not safe.
We know what the problems are. What can we do to improve?
First thing, increase manpower. Currently, there are 21,370
Border Patrol agents in this country. And that's actually what
Congress mandates that we have. We're actually about 2,000
less, under that. So we don't even have the floor that Congress
has mandated that we maintain. We do not have to double the
size of the Border Patrol to gain operational control of the
border, but we are, in my opinion, approximately 5,000 agents
short of where we should be.
Secondly, supervisory staffing levels. The Border Patrol is
an extremely top-heavy organization with far too many layers of
management. The average large police department has one
supervisor for every ten officers. The Border Patrol has one
supervisor for every four agents. The committee should mandate
a ten-to-one ratio and achieve it through attrition in the
supervisory ranks. This could easily return another 1,500
agents to the field.
Because of time, I'm just going to point out the other
points. We need to continue with interior enforcement, we need
to improve our training, and we need to prosecute assaults
against Border Patrol agents. In this manner, I believe that we
will decrease the violence on the border and we will help to
maintain border security.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:]
[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following
website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costs-
and-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul]
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank you all for your participation
and your service to this country.
I'll now recognize myself for 5 minutes to our three State
Department witnesses.
Four people on this committee, myself, Elijah Cummings, Ron
DeSantis, and Steve Lynch sent a letter dated July 15, 2015. My
question is, what percentage of the documents asked for in this
letter has the Congress--has this committee, have they been
given?
Ambassador Moser, do you know?
Mr. Moser. I don't know the exact percentage.
Chairman Chaffetz. Can you use your microphone, please.
Mr. Moser. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I don't know the exact
percentage sir. I do know that we have provided 150,000 pages
of documents.
Chairman Chaffetz. It doesn't matter unless we get the
right percentage.
So Ms. Saarnio----
Ms. Saarnio. Saarnio.
Chairman Chaffetz. --what percentage?
Ms. Saarnio. Sir, I'm not aware of that. That would be in
Ambassador Moser's----
Chairman Chaffetz. It's directed to Secretary Kerry.
Mr. Starr, what percentage of the documents do we have?
Mr. Starr. I do not know, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Should we issue a subpoena, Mr. Starr?
Mr. Starr. I believe that most of the documents are OBO-
produced documents. I know that they're working hard to----
Chairman Chaffetz. Ambassador Moser, is that true? Where
are these documents?
Mr. Moser. Sir, we have a process for producing them. And I
do want to assure you that I or members of my staff are more
than happy to work with your staff in order to prioritize----
Chairman Chaffetz. We sent the letter on July 15, and you
can't tell us that we got all the documents. So what do we need
to do to get there? Do I need to issue a subpoena?
Mr. Moser. Sir, we will work with you to try to produce the
documents that you require.
Chairman Chaffetz. When will you have all those documents
to us?
Mr. Moser. Sir, I can't tell you how fast the process will
work.
Chairman Chaffetz. That's for sure. I agree with you on
that. I shouldn't have to waste any of my time asking for
documents that we requested back in July knowing that we were
working towards a hearing on this date.
Mr. Harris, of the border, the Secure Fence Act of 2006
defined operational control as, ``the prevention of all
unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by
terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism,
narcotics, and other contraband,'' The goal of this was to
achieve 100 percent operational control.
Based on your knowledge, your experience, what percentage
of the border today is secure?
Mr. Harris. Sir, I would have to defer to CBP to give a
more detailed response to that question. In my current
capacity, that's not within my area of focus.
Chairman Chaffetz. Is there a metric that you all looked
for on that, or no?
Mr. Harris. Well, I'm really involved in counternetwork
operations, basically to work with the components across DHS--
--
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. So you don't have an answer to
that question.
Mr. Judd, what percentage of the border is under
operational control?
Mr. Judd. According to the agents that I speak with that
are actually on the frontline that actually work and see what
we arrest and what gets away, I would say that we would be
lucky if we're 40 percent.
Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Starr, one of the frontline people
that--some of the frontline people that we rely on, and for
those Americans who are working at our consulates, and
certainly at the embassy are the local guards, do you know what
we're paying those local guards on a monthly basis?
Mr. Starr. Congressman, I couldn't quote you an exact
dollar figure. We did go over this with the new contract that
we're putting in place. I would tell you that it's a
competitive salary in terms of any other local guards in the
country, and, in fact, it probably is competitive with the
police as well. But it is based on Mexican salaries.
Chairman Chaffetz. And that's the concern, is that we're
paying these local guards, at least what our staff has been
told, roughly $316 per month is their monthly salary. And I
recognize it's Mexico. It's not New York City. Wages are going
to be different. But does that number sound about right, $316
per month for a local guard to guard our U.S. facilities?
Mr. Starr. Yes, sir, that's about the prevailing wage in
Mexico.
Chairman Chaffetz. The opportunity for corruption, I think
you can see, is of great concern. I don't know what the magical
number is, but Mr. Judd, I was going to ask you about the ratio
of management and the agents that you need, but I think you've
addressed that.
One of the great concerns I have is getting these new
facilities to secure our American personnel. I'm going to put
up a slide here. To give a little background in history, we
were operating under standard embassy design. This is something
Secretary Powell put into place. But under the Obama
administration with Secretary Clinton they moved to this design
excellence.
And here is the concern. If you go to the second slide,
Tijuana was built under standard embassy design. Is there
anything wrong--Ambassador Moser--with the Tijuana facility? Is
it too ugly for Mexico?
Mr. Moser. Not to any knowledge, sir. But in fact, it
really wasn't a standard embassy design, sir. It was a
derivative. It didn't really do the exact standard embassy
design.
Chairman Chaffetz. So we spent about $668,000 per desk but
it's as close to standard embassy design as we have. But then
we have these modified design excellence. Monterrey was built,
it jumped cost at $900,000 per desk. But the two under
construction, Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, we're now looking at
$1.8 million per desk; in Nuevo Laredo at $1.7 million per
desk. We're talking $191 million to build something in
Matamoros in Nuevo Laredo at $154 million. How do you explain
that?
And by the way, in Matamoros--I'm sorry, Nuevo Laredo, $154
million, you start doing that math, you know, it's like 88
desks. How do we afford to do that around the world? Why we
have such a massive jump in expense? These expenses could go to
personnel, guard forces. And you all want to take away danger
pay. So why so much expense on these?
Mr. Moser. Sir, I acknowledge your concerns, and it is my
obligation as a career State Department employee to make sure
that we're doing our best to serve our taxpayers' concerns.
I will tell you that over time our security standards and
our building quality has increased in order to adapt to
actually new circumstances. And it's very hard without a
detailed analysis that looks at site, where building is
located, what we're trying to accomplish in each building to
compare on a desk-by-desk basis.
Chairman Chaffetz. Well, what other metric would you use?
Mr. Moser. As I've told you, it takes more of an accounting
approach where you look at what the inputs are and then gauge
it to what comes out.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah, well, that's costing tens of
millions of dollars more and it's taking a longer time. We will
continue to have hearings about this. It is an outrageous
amount of money and it's taking longer. No doubt that we need
new facilities.
I do need to ask before I yield back about the danger pay.
I'm not sure which one of the three to ask you about, but I
guess, Ms. Saarnio, we'll start with you. To what Mr. Cummings
said, are people working for the State Department in Mexico, is
there any threat of their wages going down by the loss of
danger pay?
Ms. Saarnio. Congressman, thank you for that question. You
know, I'm glad I get to answer this, because I'm very proud of
our Foreign Service colleagues who have----
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah, I know. We're all proud of them.
Keep going. What's the answer to this question? Are you going
to cut their pay?
Ms. Saarnio. The answer is that our allowances change over
time as situations change. And yes, we have developed a new
system by where we're changing danger pay and hardship pay. In
Mexico we're going--the changes will be some posts will go up
and some posts will go down. But that reflects, we believe, the
change in the situation on the ground.
The danger pay that's been calculated in the past, some of
the elements of that, the criminal violence and living
conditions, social isolation that you mentioned, those are also
accounted for in hardship pay. And so if we look at the net pay
for our colleagues, for example, our colleagues in Matamoros,
will be getting a 5 percent increase. Our colleagues in Nuevo
Laredo and Tijuana will be going down by 5 percent. So we think
that reflects the accurate situation.
Chairman Chaffetz. So Nuevo Laredo, there is no mayor that
has authority over a police force there. We've documented the
violence. Are you telling me it's more safe now in Nuevo Laredo
than it has been?
Ms. Saarnio. By our calculations, it is.
Chairman Chaffetz. The American Foreign Service Association
takes great issue with this. You disagree with them, their
analysis in that?
Ms. Saarnio. I'm a former board member of the American
Foreign Services Association.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah. They disagree with this position.
Ms. Saarnio. Well, I'm not so sure about the specific
cases.
Chairman Chaffetz. Well, I'll read you the quote``On the
basis of conditions of environments which differ substantially
from conditions of environments in the continental United
States, it's a recruitment and retention incentive.'' My
understanding is they disagree with this.
You're telling me that in northern Mexico, it's less secure
in Matamoros now and more secure in Nuevo Laredo.
Ms. Saarnio. So we believe the situation on the ground has
changed and our allowance is perceived----
Chairman Chaffetz. In Nuevo Laredo, if you work at the
consulate, do you know how far you can travel away from the
consulate as an American?
Ms. Saarnio. I do. I'm aware of the situation.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. How far can you travel?
Ms. Saarnio. You don't. You stay close by your home, and
your social life is very restricted. That's true and that's
taken into account----
Chairman Chaffetz. You have about nine square miles that
you can operate, that you are allowed to go. And you're going
to decrease their pay?
Ms. Saarnio. Sir, when Foreign Service officers sign up to
go to these posts, they recognize the situations may change and
the allowances may change in the time that they're serving
there. It's part of the process, and we recognize it when we go
to these posts.
Chairman Chaffetz. I'm just telling you, you've got a lot
of people on this panel that don't understand, given the
massive amount of violence, the statistics that we just went
through, particularly with Mr. Judd, the violence that's going
on there; and you're going to decrease these people's pay. I
went down there. It was the number one issue.
My time is well expired. This is not an acceptable
conclusion to your so-called analysis. I do not agree that it
is more safe than it has been, and it's an exceptionally
difficult place to live.
I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
pick up exactly where the chairman left off. Mrs. Saarnio, how
often are these reassessments made with regard to pay
allowances? I see Mr. Starr is jumping up and down. You can
answer. You may.
Mr. Starr. Ranking Member Cummings, if I could answer the
question.
Mr. Cummings. Please do.
Mr. Starr. At least once a year we review the allowances at
all of our posts. The danger pay that the chairman is referring
to, in August of 2014, we began a review of how we issued
danger pay. We looked at also our hardship allowances.
Mr. Cummings. When was that?
Mr. Starr. In August of 2014.
Mr. Cummings. Okay.
Mr. Starr. It's been a continuing review. Our goal is to
make sure that we have equitable implementation of our
allowances across our entire world program. The global program
includes posts that in many cases are much more dangerous than
Matamoros or Nuevo Laredo.
Yes, I absolutely admit there are high levels of violence
in both of those places. But in our analysis, it is very
different, that the violence there is not directed against the
consulate or consulate personnel. They can be in the wrong
place at the wrong time. We have many places in the world where
we serve where the violence is directed against our people, and
those are the places where our employees are getting danger
pay.
For the types of criminal violence that we see in Mexico,
that is reflected in their hardship differential, and many of
them have gotten increases in their hardship differential to
reflect the criminal violence.
Mr. Cummings. What do you define hardship as?
Mr. Starr. Hardship, it looks at many different factors. It
can look at isolation. It can look at pollution. It can look at
the medical condition.
Mr. Cummings. The nine-square-mile limitation would be a
hardship?
Mr. Starr. Exactly. Exactly, sir. But I would also tell you
that these posts in Mexico, our employees can get in a car and
in 10 or 15 minutes be in the United States and across the
border and shopping and going to school.
We have people in places like Chad. We have places, Mali,
and different places where no such types of outlet exist, and
in those places they're going to get a higher level of danger
pay if it exists, and they're going to get higher hardship
differentials. We're very careful in how we look at this. We
want to make sure that our people are getting the right
allowances for the conditions on the ground.
Mr. Cummings. Did you have something, Mr. Moser?
Ambassador; I'm sorry.
Mr. Moser. No.
Mr. Cummings. I think you'll find, Mr. Starr, that this is
a bipartisan effort to try to make sure our people are treated
fairly and that they are paid adequately, but when I thought
about what Ms. Saarnio said, she said a lot of times when these
people go into these positions, they know what they're going
into.
I mean, I know that sounds simple, but when you're a person
who really wants to serve your government, yeah, that may very
well be part of the basis of which, that you know what you're
going into. I assume that a lot of these people will take these
positions because it's a part of their job. Am I right, Madam?
Ms. Saarnio. Yes. I think many of the Foreign Service
officers are willing and go to these posts knowing the dangers,
but they also know that these allowances change over time when
you're at post; and if the situation changes, they could be
changed while they are serving there or after they leave.
Mr. Cummings. So Mr. Starr said, you look at them about on
a yearly basis. If something radical happened and there was a
major problem, would there be any kind of exception to that
general rule of one year? Do you follow me?
Mr. Starr. Congressman, not typically. I would tell you
that when we have a radical change in a situation, we look at
the measures that we take. We may implement additional
security. We may withdraw personnel. We may take family members
out of a post.
Typically the allowances are looked at once a year. On an
exceptional basis, if something really drastic does happen, we
can look at it; but generally allowances are looked at once a
year.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Starr, in your testimony, going to
another subject, you referenced a recent visit to some of the
border consulates in Mexico. Is that right?
Mr. Starr. Yes, sir, I went early last month.
Mr. Cummings. Now would you describe for us the situation
that our American personnel on the ground are experiencing?
Mr. Starr. I spent a great deal of time talking with our
employees, both our local employed staff and our Americans.
They are aware. They know the levels of violence that are going
on around them. We are not having trouble staffing those posts.
I also met with OSAC constituents, Americans that are
working with American companies that are there, and talked with
them as well. And I think it's very clear in our OSAC travel
warnings that are out to the American businesses, American
businessmen, and the consular warnings, we're not pulling any
punches on the level of danger down in Mexico.
Mr. Cummings. As a matter of fact, in the Matamoros
consular district, there was a spike in crime in February. Is
that right?
Mr. Starr. Exactly, sir. We looked at that almost daily as
we can began to see that two cartel or actually sub groups
within a cartel were beginning to fight it out among each other
and higher levels of violence. We were plotting every single
day where the violence was taking place.
We were looking at the location of our residences, the
location of where we went shopping, the location of our
facilities, against where the violence was. We were ready to
pull the pin and move people out if that violence came into our
neighborhoods but we look at those things almost daily when
that level goes up.
Mr. Cummings. So back then in February, there were six
times as many incidents as compared to the month before. Is
that right?
Mr. Starr. That's approximately right, sir, yes.
Mr. Cummings. Now, did any of these security incidents
involve U.S. citizens?
Mr. Starr. Yes, there were some U.S. citizens, not from the
consulate that were involved, but yes, there were U.S. citizens
that were affected.
Mr. Cummings. And so you talked about how you were
monitoring the problems, but what else has the State Department
done or is doing to address that type of increase?
Mr. Starr. I think that's where the value of the consulates
is most apparent and the embassy as well. As we monitored the
violence going up, we could play a role both through our
consular offices and warning Americans and Americans that were
working there.
Through OSAC we put out warnings. Our consul general was
dealing with the governor of the region and talking with the
police. The regional security officer was talking with the
police, and the ambassador and the others in the embassy in
Mexico City were pointing out that the levels of violence were
going up and that the government needed to address this quickly
and effectively. And there soon after that--and I don't want to
say that this is entirely just at our urging. Clearly the
government of Mexico understood this as well--they put
additional forces on the ground to try to stem the violence.
Mr. Cummings. Now, Mr. Harris, in June of this year, shots
were fired at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection helicopter
near Laredo, Texas. The shots appear to have come from the
Mexican side of the border. Fortunately no one was injured in
this incident, but it does raise concerns about the safety of
our Federal law enforcement officers that are protecting the
border. I understand that in response to Customs and Border
Patrol, they sent two armored Blackhawk helicopters equipped to
handle small arms fire to be used in the region. Is that
correct?
Mr. Harris. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Cummings. And what else has been done to ensure the
safety of the agents on the ground?
Mr. Harris. Well, first of all, before I answer the
question, I'd like to say that the job of a Border Patrol agent
is very dangerous work. We have had 122 Border Patrol agents
killed in the line of duty since the Border Patrol was created
in 1924. And DHS and CBP was created in 2003, and since that
time we have had 33 officers killed in the line of duty, and 29
of those were Border Patrol agents.
So there's no question that being a U.S. Border Patrol
agent is dangerous work. I think because we deal with a large
population of economic migrants, but mixed in with those
individuals are obviously some criminals. So it's important
that our agents stay on their toes on a routine basis.
We try and take a look at what we call hot spots, which are
zones that are known for a high-level of criminal activity and
make sure that we have sufficient agent resources and equipment
and the training and tactics in those areas to deal with those
types of situations.
Mr. Cummings. Just two last questions. Mr. Harris, can you
think of anything else Congress can do to help protect these
brave men and women on our borders?
Mr. Harris. Well, first of all, we appreciate all the
support that you all have also given us. I would also like to
point out on the helicopter shooting incident that Congressman
Chaffetz responded to that situation, as he had referenced.
You know, it's just more stay engaged with the border. I
think there's a lot of misinformation coupled with border
security efforts. So we welcome any visits by Members of
Congress to my new office so that you can see and hear what's
going on on the border firsthand.
Mr. Cummings. And, Mr. Starr, can you think of anything
else we can do to help out on that end? And by the way, while
you're formulating your answer, I just want you to know, Mr.
Harris, on behalf of all of us, we understand how dangerous the
job is, and we appreciate everything that you all do to address
the issues that you have because they are very difficult, and
we're sorry for the many losses and injuries that you just
spoke about.
Mr. Starr?
Mr. Starr. Congressman, I believe that what we need to
accept is that the battle to increase security rule of law and
justice in Mexico is going to be a long-term battle. I think
that we can see what has happened in Colombia and the types of
improvements that have been made there, and I think those are
the types of improvements that we're going to have to help
Mexico make.
I think DAS Saarnio could probably talk more effectively
about this in terms of the programs that we have in place. But
I think continuing those types of programs that we started in
Colombia and we're currently running in Mexico to improve the
judicial system, the training of the police, all those types of
things are what's ultimately going to make this a safer
location, safer country.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Chairman Chaffetz. Before the gentleman yields back, I'll
point out that there is no police force in Nuevo Laredo. There
is none. So you can work on training them, but there isn't even
one. It's run by the drug cartels, and shame on the State
Department for cutting the people's pay there from the State
Department.
That's not the way you're going to build morale and do more
things. You're given tens of billions of dollars, and you're
going to cut those poor people's pay. You can talk about
training the local police force, but there isn't even a local
police force to train.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming by zero time. Mr.
Starr, would you please answer what Chairman Chaffetz just
said. I think he makes a good point.
Mr. Starr. Chairman Chaffetz is correct, to my knowledge,
that the local police force is actually not functioning there,
but there are levels of police forces as well. There are police
from the governors--from that governate, it's like a state type
of police, and there are Federal police is also there and
soldiers.
So I think while Chairman Chaffetz is correct that we have
great concerns about the fact that the mayor was murdered, that
the local police have tremendous difficulties, we also work
with the Federal and state authorities to ensure that other
types of security services and police are as effective as they
can.
Chairman Chaffetz. I would ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record, this is the United States Department of State,
Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Mexico 2015 Crime and Safety
Report Nuevo Laredo into the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing.
First of all, before we get to Mr. Judd, has the situation
gotten worse? Is the violence just as bad in Mexico as it's
been? Mr. Starr, what do you say?
Mr. Starr. The violence in Mexico ebbs and flows, sir.
Mr. Mica. But right now.
Mr. Starr. In certain places it's better than it was a year
or 2 or 3 years ago. In certain places it's certainly worse.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Ambassador Moser.
Mr. Moser. I'm not an expert on Mexico but, Congressman
Mica----
Mr. Mica. Overall it's not getting much better. Is that
right?
Mr. Moser. I think there's ebbs and flows. There are parts
of Mexico like Ciudad Juarez that are safer now than they were
before.
Mr. Mica. But overall it's still a pretty violent country?
Mr. Starr. Yes.
Mr. Moser. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Ms. Saarnio, same thing? Same assessment?
Ms. Saarnio. Actually, sir, I would say that we are
cautiously optimistic that we think the situation is somewhat
better in certain parts of the country, and that's reflected in
our danger pay changes. We've seen parts of the country that
were in insurgency status a few years ago that are actually
quite operating a lot better now. And a lot of that----
Mr. Mica. And there are places that are worse?
Ms. Saarnio. That's true there are places that are worse--
--
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Harris?
Mr. Harris. Similar response. I would say that depends on
the area. I travel to Mexico on a personal basis and
professional level. Some areas you travel with security and
others you don't; but overall dangerous place, no question.
Mr. Mica. A dangerous place. Well, I read all the
testimony. Mr. Judd, I think every Member of Congress should
read yours. I think it's an incredible assessment.
Also, a little bit historic; I chaired Criminal Justice and
Drug Policy from 1998 to 2000 and was in Mexico, and we had
information at that time from the President's office to the
cops on the street; corruption was prevalent. Unfortunately
that's pretty much the same situation that we have today, but
your report details it very well.
Startling is the number of 2014, you outlined the number of
convicted criminals, and you cite the increasing number of
criminal aliens coming across. Now we're better able to detect
them, but the numbers are astounding. It says to put the figure
in perspective, in 2014 the Border Patrol apprehended and
arrested just under 500,000 illegal immigrants. Meaning one in
every five arrests last year was a criminal alien. Is that
correct?
Mr. Judd. From the research that we have done----
Mr. Mica. So to get arrested, they had to be in and caught.
Right?
Mr. Judd. That is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. That's absolutely astounding. Simple math, that's
probably 100,000 criminal aliens entering the United States.
Basically it's out of control. And then you said that there--
what can the Oversight Committee do to improve it. You said
there has to be consequences. Right?
Mr. Judd. Absolutely.
Mr. Mica. And there aren't consequences. I was stunned to
find out the fact that Mexico is one of the most important
illegal immigrant and narcotics transit points in the country.
How many agents do we have in Phoenix?
Mr. Judd. We have none.
Mr. Mica. None. You know, the other thing too is, there has
to be consequences. How many consulates do we have? I counted
about nine in Mexico. Is that right? I think we should close
every one of those consulates immediately. Put the property up
for sale. I think you have to have some consequences for
actions. The place is out of control.
I just read--well, you cited the helicopter shooting at a
U.S. Helicopter; right, and Chairman Chaffetz had helped on
that, Mr. Harris. And in your report, I think, Mr. Judd, you
said they actually shot down a Mexican helicopter the month
before. Is that correct?
Mr. Judd. Yes, they did.
Mr. Mica. And most startling, we heard the chairman, one of
the missionaries down there shot yesterday, the 43 kids that
were turned over by local authorities and shot or killed and
then their bodies burned or destroyed, and this week or so I
guess ago they just produced sort of a whitewash report on what
took place.
And one of the leaders, of Mr. Jimenez Blanco was found
dead about 2 weeks ago. He was interviewed by CNN just a couple
of weeks ago and said that last week, Jimenez told CNN--Mexico
that more than 100 bodies had been found hidden in graves in
the area since October, decrying a worsening security
situation.
So it doesn't sound like it's getting much better. They're
even killing the people who are trying to do something about
the injustice and slaughter that's going on in Mexico. Is that
correct, Mr. Judd?
Mr. Judd. Yes, it is. And what I find the scariest part of
all of this border violence is how it's extending now into the
interior of the United States. We just had a young man shot in
the back by presumed an illegal alien from the country of El
Salvador associated with the Mara Salvatrucha gang. We just had
a U.S. citizen in San Francisco who was just killed. So we're
not only seeing violence on the border, but this is extending
into the United States, and that's scary.
Mr. Mica. And finally, Mr. Chairman, just I read this week,
I think most of the illegal marijuana is still coming in from
Mexico. But, congratulations, we just passed this past week, I
saw the report that our young people, our students, more of
them are now hooked on marijuana than on cigarettes.
Congratulations.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentlewoman from New
York, Mrs. Maloney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the
panelists and Ranking Member, for calling this truly important
hearing.
And Mr. Judd hit it right on the head with his comment that
it's not only on the border now. It is coming into the United
States. Just this past week a news reporter and her cameraman
were shot. A police officer putting gas in his car was shot. A
woman from Illinois was shot. The incidents that you mentioned,
and as Mr. Starr said, it's going to be a long effort on the
border. And as my colleague, Mr. Mica, mentioned, it is out of
control.
And I would like to point out that a lot of the shooting is
coming from guns that were manufactured and slipped over the
border into Mexico. In fact, Mexico has some of the most
restrictive gun laws in the entire world, yet it's seen a
tremendous surge in gun-related violence.
Just yesterday Chairman Cummings shared with me this letter
that was sent to him from Charge de Affairs of Mexico,
Alejandro Estivill, and in it he says that the ATF found that
over 70 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico in 2014 were
sourced from the United States. Now, that is a shocking
statistic.
Seventy percent of the guns came from America. And in it he
further writes, ``Congress can play a very important role in
combatting these transborder criminal organizations and the
flow of illegal firearms by enacting proper legislation,'' I
ask unanimous permission to put this letter into the record,
Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Chaffetz.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Maloney. And we are trying to do just that. Earlier
today in a bipartisan way, Ranking Member Cummings and others,
Member Kelly from Illinois, introduced legislation to make it a
felony to deal with illegal guns, to be a trafficker. It's not
even a felony in our country to traffic in illegal guns. I
would say how dumb can you be? We should pass a bill making it
a felony tomorrow, today.
And also the penalties, as we have heard in hearings before
this committee, on the fast and furious hearings we had from
law enforcement, they don't even bother to arrest traffickers
or straw purchasers, those who purchase guns for others that
are known criminals or drug dealers or gang leaders because
there's no penalty. It's like a paper penalty, so they don't
waste their time doing it. And they literally pled with us to
give them the tools to do the job.
So today we are introducing this bill in a bipartisan way
that would increase penalties for straw purchasers and make
trafficking in illegal guns a felony.
Now, in Mexico, just to give an example, to make a purchase
in a gun store, and they only have one gun store in the whole
country, but to make a purchase they are required by law, and
their store is operated by the Army, they must pass a
background check, present identification, pass through a metal
detector, hand over cell phones, a camera, just to enter the
building. And once inside, a perspective buyer is
fingerprinted, photographed, and then permitted to buy a single
weapon and a box of ammunition; and they're required to take
that home and put it under lock and key. So they have strong
gun laws, but the obvious question is where are all these guns
coming from? And these guns are coming from the United States.
And, Mr. Harris, in your testimony you said, ``the U.S.
Mexican border, the primary threats are southbound gun
smuggling, northern bound drug trafficking, human trafficking,
illegal immigration, and the violence associated with these
activities.'' Could you elaborate, please, Mr. Harris, on the
southbound gun smuggling. How big is it? Can you tell us more
about this gun smuggling?
Mr. Harris. Yes, ma'am. I'll answer that question in kind
of two parts. One is what my role is in southbound weapons
smuggling at a strategic level. As I had also mentioned in my
testimony, for the first time ever we have identified across
the border the top transnational criminal organizations who are
involved in the full gamut of smuggling activities which are
listed. I would ask to add southbound bulk cash smuggling to
that list as well.
But this to me is a huge accomplishment, never before seen
in my career. All investigative agencies, whether FBI, DEA,
ICE, they all have their cases that they work; but for the
first time ever we have interagency agreement on which top
criminal organizations we believe represent the highest threat
to U.S. national security. Some of those organizations are
involved in southbound weapons smuggling. Our success on
targeting these organizations before this has pretty much been
on the domestic side, but this new position gives me the
capability to target these organizations all the way from the
origination point to the final destination point. That's one
part of the----
Mrs. Maloney. How many guns do you think are being
trafficked into Mexico each year? Do you have any feel for it?
Mr. Harris. Well, the second part of my answer will respond
to that. I'm not an expert at port of entry operations. I'll
have to defer to my CBP counterpart. However, from my former
capacity as a Border Patrol chief in Laredo, we routinely
augment southbound inspections by OFO officers with detailed
Border Patrol agents. I would say by and large our success in
targeting southbound weapons smuggling is due to the vigilance
and capabilities of our agents.
As I'm sure you know, we do not have the same kind of
technology going southbound that we have going northbound. Nor
do we do 100 percent southbound inspections. We do halts and
surge operations and operations based on intelligence and
investigative information, but largely the southbound weapons
seizures are cold hits. It would be helpful to have some
similar technology going southbound to what we have going
northbound, a nonintrusive inspection technology, some of the
backscatters would be very instrumental, and I think that would
give us a better picture of what kind of weapons are going
southbound.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Maloney. My time is expired, but if I could say, Mr.
Chairman, in one second, obviously part of controlling the
crime in America and at the border is controlling the sale of
illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases of illegal guns.
Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get
started, Ms. Maloney points out in her call for more gun laws
here in the United States, that Mexico has some of the
strictest gun laws and yet has the high violence. I think that
just goes to make the point that restrictive gun laws actually
take guns out of the hands outs of law-abiding citizens and put
them into the hands of criminals
Mrs. Maloney. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Farenthold. I don't have much time. If I do at the end,
I will. I have some points I'd like to make because I used to
represent the border at Brownsville and joined Mr. Chaffetz in
June in his visit to Laredo after the helicopter was shot at,
had the opportunity to visit with some of the Border Patrol
agents down there.
Real quickly, while I get started, Mr. Harris, have we
caught the people who shot at the helicopter, or has the
Mexican Government caught them.
Mr. Harris. Well, the FBI is responsible for investigating
all assaults on Federal agents. They're responsible for that
investigation. It's my understanding that an individual was
taken into custody. He was transported to Tampico, where he
went before a judge, but he's now missing.
Mr. Farenthold. That's reassuring. One of the things that I
learned down there in visiting with some of the Border Patrol
agents and actually spending some time on the border with some
of the agents, was a level of frustration with some of the
policies that this government has that makes it difficult to do
their job. I hear it referred to as catch and release, or a
policy that if there are only a certain number of illegal
aliens in a vehicle, the coyote, or human smuggler, is not
prosecuted and is let go, a frustration with seeing the same
folks again and again.
They're caught; they're shooed across the border, counted
as a deportation, and are back in the United States in a matter
of hours. In fact, I visited with some of the Sheriffs in the
district I represent, Sheriff T. Michael O'Connor in Victoria,
or Frank Osborne, Matagorda County, and Jess Howell of Wharton;
and they're all very upset and concerned about the Priority
Enforcement Program, in which case very often the Federal
Government refuses to take illegal aliens that they apprehend
for deportation.
Mr. Judd, I'll start with you. Can you talk a little bit
about, was my characterization of the frustration of the rank
and file agents accurate?
Mr. Judd. I think it was too soft. I think that you could
have expressed a much greater level of frustration.
I want to point out that on the northern border, there was
an arrest made of an illegal alien in the Havre Border Patrol
sector. We took this individual into custody. We immediately
released the individual on the street. Within weeks that
individual went up to I believe it was Great Falls, Montana,
and raped a 14-year old girl. We had this individual in our
custody. We had the authority to remove this individual from
this country, and we didn't do it. And then that individual
went and raped a 14-year old girl. Her life will never be the
same.
Mr. Farenthold. And we see this again and again with the
tragic murder of Kate Steinle, the shooting of the Border
Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley by a pair of men who had
been between them deported I think seven times. And there was a
story in the news, I think it was just in the past couple of
days, where a convicted burglar from Mexico with a history of
repeated felony convictions and deportation was caught last
week. It was the fifth time he crossed the border and had
actually spent the bulk of the past 30 years in various jails.
It just seems absolutely critical that we get the border
secured. No point working on immigration before we get that
done.
Mr. Harris, can you talk a little bit about the Priority
Enforcement Program, the PEP, and have you heard from the
sheriffs as well about their concern? They catch somebody, an
illegal alien, and basically have nothing to do with them but
turn them loose. We just defunded sanctuary cities in this
country, but with PEP and the Border Patrol not taking aliens
sheriffs caught, we have basically created a sanctuary country,
haven't we?
Mr. Harris. I'll answer that question again in two parts.
One is, as was noted in my testimony, I've been in the Border
Patrol for 31 years. I've been in the Border Patrol when we
made up to 1.6 million apprehensions a year with about 3,000
agents on duty. Most of those individuals were from the country
of Mexico, very easy to deal with those individuals. It was a
revolving door type of a situation, as Mr. Judd had indicated
earlier. But the border dynamics have changed over my career
from what it was.
About 42 percent of everyone we apprehend is from a
noncontiguous territory, most of those being from Central
America, and a lot of them being women and children. So it's a
different kind of a dynamic on how we deal with those
individuals. And about 33 percent of everybody the Border
Patrol arrests has to go before some kind of an immigration
judge or an immigration proceeding. So the Border Patrol does
not own all of the process, nor am I seeking that ownership,
but it does not own all of the process that would allow for
immediate repatriation of those individuals.
The second part of my response again is what my job is is
really to target the criminal network from beginning to end.
That does not necessarily mean that we are targeting criminal
aliens throughout the United States as part of my job, but I'll
just give you one example. I think ICE fugitive operations does
a great job of picking up criminal aliens. And when I stepped
into this job, they had just done a press event where they had
arrested about 2,000 criminal aliens throughout the country. No
question----
Mr. Farenthold. But your job and your men's job would be
easier if there were consequences to entering this country
illegally and folks were deported and they faced consequences
for multiple offenses? Mr. Judd, Mr. Harris, just a yes or no;
would that be a better situation, because I'm out of time?
Mr. Judd. Yes.
Mr. Farenthold. Are you with us on that one, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Excuse me, sir?
Mr. Farenthold. Do you think it would be better if we had
some consequences and repatriated folks?
Mr. Harris. Well, I think every law enforcement officer
regardless of what the profession is, when they've taken action
they want to see some sort of a consequence delivered, but a
little bit more challenging with the population we're dealing
with.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, and my time is expired. And I
apologize to the gentlelady from New York in not being able to
yield to her.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This
discussion about undocumented criminals, violence of course on
the border, raises the question for me of the role that
consulates play with respect to security, particularly in
northern Mexico.
Now, as I understand it, Mr. Starr, the security agencies,
the law enforcement agencies, are coordinated or facilitated
through the consulate. I have in mind Customs and Border
Protection, Drug Enforcement Agency, Immigration, of course,
and Customs Enforcement, Marshal Service, is the consulate the
place where these agencies would be stationed?
Mr. Starr. Ma'am, I can't say that every single one of
those agencies is at every single one of the consulates, but
you are correct that the consulates do serve as a base for
consular operations and for those types of operations, along
with the Embassy in Mexico.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Starr, what I'm trying to get at is, you
know, the average American if you say what's a consulate for
would think about visas and tourism and the rest. We're talking
about violence, undocumented criminals, and the rest; and I'm
trying to get at what we're doing on the ground in Mexico
through our consulates and the role they play.
Now, the United States I think, Mr. Starr, has wisely tried
to involve itself in reform of the criminal justice system in
Mexico itself in order to truly get at drug trafficking, gun
trafficking, organized crime, which of course is always at the
top of our agenda. And I'd like to ask you in that regard about
the so-called Merida Initiative, which as I understand it, is
charged with disrupting criminal organizations, strengthening
judicial institutions in Mexico, improving stability in the
surrounding communities.
Ms. Saarnio, or Mr. Starr, does that sound like what the
Merida Initiative is about?
Ms. Saarnio. Yes. Thank you, Representative, for bringing
that up. I really appreciate you mentioning that because what
we're talking about is the Merida Initiative. It's our security
initiative with Mexico. We have been working with Mexico
extensively since 2008. We have invested about $1.4 billion
right now in trying to improve the security situation in Mexico
by working with the Mexican Government at the Federal, state
and local levels, and we actually have seen areas where we have
made progress, and we think a lot of that progress is because
of our presence on the ground.
If we're working in Ciudad Juarez or in Tijuana or in
Monterrey, our law enforcement officials, our military
officials, can work with Mexican counterparts to give them
advice, to lend assistance when they need it, to provide
training if possible; and it's because of the funding provided
by Congress, which we're very grateful for, where we have been
able to actually make some in-roads and help Mexico establish
the rule of law and the system that they are seeking.
Ms. Norton. What impact would closing the consulates have
on an initiative like the Merida Initiative?
Ms. Saarnio. I think it would be very tragic not to have
our colleagues down there in Mexico. They work very well every
day on a daily basis with our counterparts all over the
country.
Ms. Norton. Is the Consulate where they're based?
Ms. Saarnio. They're based at the embassy primarily, but
they're also based at several of our consulates, yes. So in
some of the cases where we have had the most success, it's
where our officials were working locally with the officials
locally; so, yes, it would have an impact, and I think it would
be detrimental to not have it.
Ms. Norton. What impact has it had so far on security in
the region?
Ms. Saarnio. Well, we believe the strong presence of our
consulates actually helps establish the security. Not only are
we providing for the security of American officials, American
citizens who are there, but we also can work with local
authorities and, as I said, to help them rebuild their
institutions and help the Mexican Government achieve what it's
seeking to do.
Our colleagues are really working all over the country all
the time with the Mexican Government; and we're trying to help
them achieve their goals.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, earlier in
your opening remarks, you said environments such as that in
Mexico involve constantly shifting threats, require
comprehensive planning, agile decisionmaking, in depth
diplomacy. You went on to say, but it's simply not enough to
improve physical security. We're also training the Foreign
Service community on how to better respond in these
environments.
Since 2008 the State Department has had a plan to build a
Diplomatic Security training center, and included in that has
been the curriculum, the infrastructure, and the personnel. But
the OMB and the GAO have come out with reports on this. And
during those studies, those studies that the OMB and the GAO
have come out with, the OMB report has not been released. I
have seen the OMB report, and my staff has seen the GAO report.
Both of those reports cite the lack of cooperation by the State
Department in trying to come up with proposals for this
facility to be built.
Can you tell me on a facility that's this important, on a
facility that's this expensive, why the State Department would
be uncooperative in addressing this? Can you tell me why FLETC,
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, in Glynco,
Georgia, was only given 60 days to respond to this? Don't you
think that they deserve more than 60 days? Don't you think the
taxpayers of this country deserve to know exactly apples and
apples what's going to be the best facility? What are we going
to get the most from our taxpayers' dollars there? Would you
agree with that?
Mr. Starr. Yes, sir, I would. I believe that it's clear
that spending money on something that doesn't meet our
requirements is not going to be a good investment. In previous
hearings and in previous discussions with FLETC, they could not
take our entire program and don't have the facilities that we
need for the types of weapons that we use at the FLETC
facility.
They proposed using the Townsend Bombing Range, which is
about 60 miles north of FLETC. That is a Marine Corps bombing
range that is at the moment under consideration from going from
a nonlive munition bombing range to a live munition bombing
range----
Mr. Carter. I understand that, Mr. Starr. If I could.
Mr. Starr. We believe that the Fort Pickett site is the
best----
Mr. Carter. Mr. Starr, let me ask you, Mr. Starr; did you
make this clear FLETC? Do you think that they had all the
information? Because when you talk about the curriculum
requirements for the training center, both in the OMB report
and the GAO report, ``It says the course information is only in
the minds of the instructors, and providing it would cause a
significant delay in Diplomatic Security operation.''
How can we get a price on the curriculum, how can we get an
idea, when it's only in the minds of the instructors?
Mr. Starr. I'm sorry, sir, that's not correct. We have
extensive records----
Mr. Carter. This come right out of the report.
Mr. Starr. We have extensive records. We have provided the
curriculum. This is not just in the mind of the instructors,
sir----
Mr. Carter. Mr. Starr, I have seen the report.
Mr. Starr. Which report, sir?
Mr. Carter. The OMB report, which you have denied to be
released. I found nothing in there sensitive whatsoever.
There were six comparisons done. FLETC came out on top with
three of those comparisons. Two of them were even, and one of
them favored Fort Pickett. Can you tell me why that report's
not being released?
Mr. Starr. Sir, the OMB report is a preliminary study.
Mr. Carter. Why is it not being released?
Mr. Starr. I don't know, sir. That's an OMB report. I can
tell you that the GAO report does not reflect that. GAO report
has been finished. It has not been released yet either. I think
it is probably wise to wait until that report is released.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Starr, you would agree this is important.
Protecting the lives of our Foreign Service members are very
important. Protecting their lives, and training is very
important. We all agree with that.
This is easy. This is easy when we sit here and when we sat
here a couple months ago and talked about Afghanistan, and
said, hey, we spent too much money. We should have, could have,
would have, but what's not easy is to do something about it and
to learn from it and to have an apples-to-apples comparison.
You need to go back; you need to compare the two sites, compare
them fairly. If you're right, then I will be the first one in
line to support you in that, but I'm telling you, you have not
done that yet.
The State Department has made up their mind, they're not
going to change their mind. It can only be built near
Washington, D.C. Because after all, everything comes from
Washington, D.C. That's the only way it can ever work. Mr.
Starr, this is not right. You need to go back. You need to make
it apples-to-apples comparisons. If we sit here and we say we
shouldn't have spent this much money, but we don't learn from
it, and we don't do something about the future, then we're all
at fault here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all
the witnesses for coming today. This is an enormously important
discussion we are having.
We heard from you, Mr. Harris, and particularly from you,
Mr. Judd, some really vivid testimony about the level of
violence that we're seeing connected with the border and the
level of criminal that we're seeing at the border; but really
Chairman Chaffetz called this hearing in large measure to talk
about whether we ought to close those three consulates that he
discussed.
And actually my colleague, Mr. Mica, is calling for the
closure of all nine consulates in Mexico. What I didn't get
from you, Mr. Harris, or you, Mr. Judd, was the nexus between
that discussion and the discussion of the level of violence
that you've been talking about. How does it cut, starting with
you, Mr. Harris, how would closing these three consulates that
Chairman Chaffetz is talking about, how would that cut on the
violent situation there?
Mr. Harris. Sir, first of all, let me just say I'm not
familiar with the criteria that was referenced on the office
and the pay systems and all that. I'll just say that in terms
of my business, our relationship with Mexico and our ability is
to protect and promote U.S. Interests is critically important
to border security. I routinely travel to Mexico, work with the
State Department and all of the country team in Mexico City, so
having our people deployed in a way that we can best protect
and promote the interests of the United States is critically
important.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Judd?
Mr. Judd. When I came to testify, I came to testify about
violence on the border and keeping U.S. Personnel safe.
As far as Mexican consulates go, I have no idea how to do
that. All I can tell you is I am an expert in border security
and what comes across the border and how we can better promote
operations to effectively secure the border, and that's what
I'm trying to give testimony on.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So that's kind of a separate
discussion that you gentlemen are giving us, but I appreciate
your coming, and those are sobering comments that both of you
gave us.
In February of this year, in fact, right at the time of the
spike of the violence at Matamoros area, I spent some time with
my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Filemon Vela in
Texas. In fact, we were right across the border from Matamoros
at the time in February. I met with individuals from CBP who
work tirelessly to make sure that our border is secure, most
notably, and something that almost never gets mentioned, is
keeping our borders secure from insects that would infiltrate
our American crops. And I thank you for all the work in that
regard.
I witnessed how vitally important our trade relationship is
with Mexico. The U.S. is Mexico's largest foreign investor.
More than 18,000 U.S. companies operate in Mexico. My State of
Pennsylvania exports $3.44 billion worth of goods to Mexico
every year, so that accounts to 246,400 Pennsylvania jobs, so
this is a subject of interest to me.
On my trip I learned about the role of the maquiladoras,
the factories where Mexican workers assemble products for
foreign companies. Most are U.S.-owned or subsidiaries and
employ American managers and engineers, many of whom work in
the Mexican maquiladoras as managers, middle managers by day,
and then come back over the border to places like McAllen,
Texas, where they live.
Our working relationship with Mexico is enormously
important to our economic security; and as I witnessed, the
work of the consulates is vital to that mission. Ms. Saarnio in
your testimony you recognize the importance of the bilateral
relationship between the U.S. And Mexico. You stated, ``Two-Way
trade topped $500 billion in 2014, with 80 percent of that
crossing the U.S.-Mexico land border.'' Ms. Saarnio, how do
U.S. consulates facilitate our trade relationship with Mexico?
Ms. Saarnio. Thank you, Congressman. That's an excellent
question. Our consulates are very active with the business
community on the ground in dealing with both security issues,
but also in promoting the trade and the business that goes back
and forth. The U.S. and Mexico share this very close North
American trading relationship, but it's gotten deeper in the
last 20 years after NAFTA. I have to say that I think our
consulates, besides providing daily contact with the American
companies there, they support business documents need to be
signed. They need to be notarized. They need to help moving
freight across the border. If something gets stopped because of
the lack of paperwork or something, they'll work with them to
help facilitate, and they make that trade more efficient on a
daily basis.
Our consulates are very active in working with that, and it
is my understanding the business community is very supportive
of an active presence by the consulates in those regions.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, ma'am. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank my
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, in highlighting
the problem of insects on the border. It's a real problem and
something we deal with all the time. I represent over 820 miles
of the border from Eagle Pass, Piedras Negras on the Mexican
side, to El Paso, Ciudad Juarez, on the Mexican side, with Beto
O'Rourke, Filemon Vela, and Henry Cuellar. We represent all of
the Texas border, so this is something that we engage in on a
weekly basis. And I don't have much time.
So my first question to you, Mr. Judd--and I'm going to try
to keep our little tet-a-tet tight. We spent a lot of time here
discussing the violence on the border and the danger of the
border and that it's expanding in the interior. I was down the
border last week in Ojinaga and Presidio, and I know one of the
challenges I heard a lot was the lack of manpower in some of
these locations, especially a place like Presidio. Can you tell
us a little bit about what that means from an operations
perspective, and if you can keep that answer tight.
Mr. Judd. Absolutely. Without the manpower on the border,
we can't properly--we just physically can't secure the border.
We need men and women on the borders to do that. When you have
specific areas like Presidio where the living conditions are
absolutely horrendous, it's literally impossible to keep agents
in that area, and so we need to do something. It was
interesting that a couple years ago they took away the
designation from Presidio.
Mr. Hurd. You're reading my mind, brother. And so my
understanding that some of these locations have changed their
status from hardship posts, and I've seen a disproportionate
share of agents leave or simply transfer out. Part of the move
away from hardship designation was an effort to save money. Is
the Union open to some form of solution that would allow and
agent to move up in terms of the eligibility or preference for
the next post if they spend a certain amount of time in a
hardship posting?
Mr. Judd. We have been pushing the Agency for that, and
unfortunately they haven't reciprocated.
Mr. Hurd. Excellent. And we're going to have some more
conversations on that. Mr. Starr, Ambassador Moser, I want to
thank you all and your organizations and your predecessors for
what you do. I spent 9 years as an undercover officer in the
CIA. I was in some really dangerous places like Pakistan,
Afghanistan. I've been in embassies that have been bombed. I've
been in embassies that have been shot up. I've been in
embassies where thousands of people have marched on it, and
because of the work of you all's two organizations, you had
Mama Hurd's youngest son come home, and so I appreciate that
and what you do.
My only real concern is the cost of some of these
embassies. Texas A&M University built 110,000-seat stadium for
about $450 million. I think there's some expertise we can rely
on there. But one of the problems that I actually have, and
what I appreciate that you all do with the travel advisory in
Mexico, the advisory in Mexico is the only advisory where you
all split it up by state. Right? And I think that shows the
important relationship that we have with Mexico. We can secure
our border. I know Mr. Judd and his colleagues are working hard
every single day, and we can facilitate the movement of goods
and services at the same time. We must. And that's super
important.
So Juarez, 2008, the murder capital of the world. 2010,
half has many murders as Detroit and New Orleans. Ojinaga,
right, there's less murders in Ojinaga in 2014 than there were
in Baltimore. So my concern is when we talk about Mexico is a
big place, 80 percent of the violence is in 20 percent of the
country. That's about five states. And if you break that down
into municipalities, it's about 20 municipalities outs of
hundreds.
And I get frustrated when we try to talk about Mexico as
one place, and it's not. And so I'm just looking to work with
you all on making sure that the travel advisories in some of
these cities are reflective of the needs on the grounds. And I
made a comment when I was in Ojinaga. I've been in some pretty
dangerous places, and Ojinaga is not one of them.
And I'm looking just for you all's opinions on being able
to ensure that those travel advisories are reflective of those
communities, because on the border, it's not two communities.
It's one community. And the importance of trade and people,
goods and services going back and forth, is so critical to this
country. What's good for northern Mexico is good for southern
United States, and it's good for both countries. And, Mr.
Starr, your comments, please.
Mr. Starr. Thank you, Congressman. Specifically to that
topic, both OSAC and the warnings that we work with from each
individual consulate and the OSAC country councils and city
councils that we have, look specifically at the areas.
The consular warning sheets are countrywide, but there are
also post-security bulletins that come out from the consulate,
and I think this is one of the arguments for why we have
consulates in different places. American citizens can go to
that Web site for each individual consulate and look at what's
going on in that immediate area. I recognize that, yes,
sometimes the consular warning sheets are a rather blunt tool
because we have I think, Sue, is it over 25 million Americans a
year visit Mexico, and we do have to give them sort of honest,
open advice, but we also further break it down for those people
that are in specific areas, and we try to do that. But I will
take your concerns back with me.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you very much. And my last point, and I'm
already over time--I apologize, Chairman. Ms. Saarnio, please
communicate to the members of the Foreign Service, and they're
sometimes overlooked at the difficulty of their job. They're
doing it in hard places. They're working hard every single day
to export our soft power around the world, and they do it in
tough places. I recognize that. I had the honor of serving
side-by-side with many of those. Thank you for what you do and
please communicate that back.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I'll now recognize Ms. Kelly
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Everyone here today would
agree that the Mexican Government must work to enhance security
in their country. The violent crime that takes place in some
places in Mexico, taking into consideration what my colleague
just said, often resonates across the border here in the United
States and simply cannot be ignored.
We know that American firearms often turn up at crime
scenes in Mexico. In March, the ATF reported that out of
104,850 guns traced between 2009 and 2014, 70 percent
originated in the United States. Mr. Harris, I'm sure that
Customs and Border Patrol encounters many guns at the border.
Do you agree that the consistent flow of firearms from the U.S.
Across the border to Mexico is a serious problem?
Mr. Harris. Yes, ma'am. I had responded to a previous
question. I think our men and women do a great job on
southbound inspections. The OFO personnel who are doing
sometimes random southbound inspections are oftentimes
augmented by Border Patrol agents detailed over to assist with
that effort. And the firearms that are seized during southbound
operations without the aid of intelligence or investigative
information are largely due to the hard work of the men and
women.
However, as I'm sure you know, we do not have the same
level of technology and inspection capabilities going
southbound as we have northbound. And I think if we would have
some similar technology, the backscatters and other
nonintrusive inspection capabilities to augment the great work
of the men and women on southbound inspections, it would
probably help us to do a better job of seizing more weapons
going into Mexico, which, as you indicate, is a problem.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
In 2008, the Mexican ambassador to the United States pled
with the U.S. to do something to help stem the flow of weapons
into his country, saying, ``Between Texas and Arizona alone,
you've got 12,000 gun shops along that border with Mexico, and
a lot of these gun shops provide weapons that feed into
organized crime in Mexico. So we really need the support of the
United States.''
Ms. Saarnio, do you agree with that, American firearms are
contributing to the violence within Mexico or some parts of
Mexico?
Ms. Saarnio. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think the problem
of violence in Mexico and as it crosses over in the United
States is a problem that we share with Mexico. We share a
common border. We share many issues. They're multifaceted
issues. I think we have to deal with problems on our side of
the border and the Mexicans have to deal with problems on their
side of the border, and we do work very closely with them on
it. But I am sure that if we were to deal with some of these
issues in our side, they would be appreciated in Mexico.
Ms. Kelly. This is a tremendous problem because one of the
principal tactics used by criminals to obtain these weapons is
straw purchasing. And I know my colleagues have already raised
this issue, and I'm proud to join Ranking Member Cummings and
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney to introduce the bipartisan Gun
Trafficking Prevention Act of 2015, House Resolution 3455. I
feel this bill will close this glaring loophole and would help
with the issue. So thank you.
And I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I'd like to make a note here that the--
from Homeland Security Customs and Border Patrol, this is the
number of seizures of guns on the southwest border in 2015, 60.
Six zero. That's it.
If you look at the ATF statistic, some 8,200 traces in a
category called U.S.-sourced firearms. I want to be careful,
because U.S. source, under the definition provided by the ATF,
refers to those firearms that were determined by ATF to be
manufactured in the United States or legally imported into the
United States by an FFL, a Federal firearms licensee.
So legal transportation of it, they may have been used in a
crime, but if they were manufactured in the United States, they
would also fall into that statistic. So I think it is a little
bit high. And if anybody on this panel is concerned about the
illegal flow of guns, then you've got to look first at what the
Obama administration did in Fast and Furious.
And this panel, this Oversight Committee asked for the
documents from the State Department and from others about the
operation--or from the Department of Justice, I should say,
about Fast and Furious. Did the administration work with us in
an open and candid way? No. Did the administration provide the
documents to Congress? No. We had to take them to court. In
fact, that is still pending. Because the Government through the
Department of Justice knowingly and willingly gave the drug
cartels nearly 2,000 weapons.
So we can drag out Mr. Holder and other people in the Obama
administration, but they gave out nearly 2,000 AK-47s to the
drug cartels, and we want to look at that. We had to hold the
attorney general in contempt of Congress. We had to actually go
to the courts to try to get those documents. We still don't
have those documents.
So for people to say, ``Oh, we're worried about the drugs
or the guns that are going back and forth,'' let's look at what
our government did in a complicit way to provide the drug
cartels those weapons. That is an investigation this committee
will continue. It's still in the courts. And it's one of the
most outrageous things to happen.
So I would actually agree with the gentlewoman. But it
shouldn't start with our government knowingly giving those
weapons to the drug cartels.
Thanks everybody for their indulgence.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Walker, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your
passion on this issue.
I want to talk a little bit about--go the direction
concerning human trafficking and human smuggling, if I could,
and I want to tie it into the border crossing cards. I have a
question, what are the risks of these thieves that are able to
duplicate these cards? Is that possible of the 11,500 that were
made? Because I have a card here as well, and it's a card that
I use here in D.C. Sometimes I'll use it to vote. Other times I
just show it and I'm kind of granted access here. So help me
understand. Can that be duplicated?
Mr. Starr. Sir, they have features in them that make it
very difficult to do a photo substitution or duplicate them.
I think the other thing that's important to remember on the
cards that were stolen, that anybody that's actually trying to
do illegal activity would not want to use one of those cards
that was stolen because every one of those is registered
electronically as a stolen card now. So if they go to the
border and show it, it automatically rings a bell and, you
know, these people are going to be doubly inspected.
So we have a high degree of confidence that the cards that
were stolen, the majority have been recovered. Those that
haven't been, very difficult to duplicate and likely that the
cartels or anybody else engaged in illegal business would not
want to use them.
Mr. Walker. And the RFID can be turned off remotely. So are
we under the impression--I mean, is this something that we can
go on record saying those are 100 percent inoperable? Those
cards are now rendered completely useless, that they would not
be used by someone trying to smuggle a human being? Is that
fair to say?
Mr. Starr. I would think, sir, that nobody that's in the
smuggling business is going to try to go legally across a
border would want to use one of those cards that's entered as
stolen. And as I say, that would raise the profile. What they
would really want is to steal a card from a legal user that's
not been declared stolen that has a similarity on it to the
person on it. But still, even the biometrics then are not going
to be the same.
Mr. Walker. So it's not just something that they could use
ever as far as an ID card or passing through anything. These
cards now, once they've been deactivated, so to speak, if
that's the right terminology, there's no way they can use those
at any place or any location for whatever purpose?
Mr. Starr. Sir, I wouldn't go that far. I think, you know,
along the border where there's active inspection of them, I
think they'll be detected very quickly. I think people do use
them for other purposes. But, again, if the photograph doesn't
match, and they're very hard to do photo substitutions without
destroying that card, it would be very difficult.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Mr. Judd, do you have any concern or
other comments on that?
Mr. Judd. No. The ports of entry, I don't work at the port
of entry. I work between the ports of entry. For me, it would
be very difficult if somebody took a card from, like for
instance my card. If somebody took my card and I encounter them
in the interior, there's no way for me to actually run that
through the checks that Mr. Starr currently----
Mr. Walker. Fair enough. I'm satisfied with that answer.
Let me ask you this: In moving forward, have we pretty much
solidified that this mistake is now moving forward? This won't
happen again? Is that something we've looked into, as far as
how this was broken, how this was stolen, how these things got
lost to begin with?
Mr. Starr. I visited the transit facility that they went
out of, sir, talked with the employees there. There had been a
very hard look at how we were moving those cards. We have made
some changes in how they're delivered. We are now only--I would
prefer not to speak about some of the ways that we have gone
into making some of those changes, sir, but we did look closely
at it.
I think our consular sheets are still accurate, that, you
know, hijacking and carjacking can still be--is very, you know,
a problem in Mexico and we have to watch out for that. But we
are taking additional measures to try to ensure that this
doesn't occur again.
Mr. Walker. Well, I appreciate you doing--did I hear
somebody else weigh in? I'm sorry.
Human trafficking in my State, North Carolina, even that
far away from the border is now number nine in the country. We
were able to pass early on training for border security. That
piece of legislation is now law. This is a very technologically
advanced, even in our own research here we're showing, even
some of your reports showing these aren't just ma and pa. These
have been kind of assimilated into these large international
organizations, if we want to make sure we're doing everything
we can to shut that down at the border. Appreciate your help.
And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. If the gentleman will yield. How many
border crossing cards are there in circulation? Do you have any
idea? Millions, right?
Mr. Starr. Millions, sir. Certainly tens of millions.
Chairman Chaffetz. So the idea is that Mexican nationals
can get a border crossing card that is valid for 24 hours--for
is it 24 hours in the United States? It's a day pass basically.
Mr. Starr. By State, there are distances that they can go
within a certain State with them and other limitations on them.
Chairman Chaffetz. So the idea is that you can basically go
for the day, go shopping in, say, Nogales and then go back
across the border. But there are millions of them. There's no
exit program, correct? Do you have any way--Mr. Judd, are you
scanning any--how many of the border crossing cards that are
used daily are scanned in their exit?
Mr. Judd. That I'm aware of, none.
Chairman Chaffetz. How many are scanned on the inbound?
Mr. Judd. All of them.
Chairman Chaffetz. So we have statistics about how many
come into the United States and we have zero statistics on how
many actually leave the United States. What's the consequence
of being caught in the United States with just a border
crossing card?
Mr. Judd. Next to nothing.
Chairman Chaffetz. So we give out millions of passes, we
have no exit program, we have no way of verifying, and there's
no consequence if you do it anyway. And so thousands of them
get stolen. I'm still worried that they're used many ways as a
flash pass saying, ``Yeah, I'm here legally. I'm just here for
the day.'' Even though in some places you can only go 25 miles
into the United States. In other places, I think it's up to 40
miles, if I'm not mistaken. But it's not supposed to be your
free entry into the United States of America, and yet it's just
inexcusable you have no exit program to be able to scan these
passes.
I'll yield back. My apologies.
Ms. Plaskett, you're now recognized for a very generous 5
minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Very generous, I like that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
And good afternoon to all of you.
I'm sitting here and I know that we're talking about
consulate construction, but I just came home from the U.S.
Virgin Islands, which is now, along with Puerto Rico,
considered the fourth border. And we had a weekend of violence
that was profound, with a young man being gunned down in a
daycare parking lot while his wife went to pick up their child;
100 shots being fired in the early evening in another part of
the town; and then the following morning in front of a high
school at 9:00 in the morning, granted it was a Saturday,
another individual being gunned down.
And I understand that a lot of this is, one, due to
economic non-opportunity, failing schools, but also because of
the guns and drugs that come through borders like my own. And
when I look at, in 2007, that the U.S. and Mexico began what I
hear is called the Merida Initiative, which, according to the
State Department, is an initiative with four general goals: To
disrupt criminal organizations, strengthen judicial
institutions, improve border infrastructure and technology, and
improve stability in the Mexican community.
I wish that places like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands had an initiative with its own government like that.
But when I see some of the bills that are coming through and
the lack of appropriations and the lack of support I'm getting
from many of my colleagues on that, it makes me question if any
of that's ever going to happen.
But I know we're here supposed to talk about consulate
construction and progress in Mexico, and so I've digressed and
I'll get back on topic to what I was supposed to be talking
about.
I was fortunate to go with my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz, to
Mexico in May because I was interested in seeing how borders
and consulates operate to stem not just the tide of illegal
drugs and guns and individuals coming undocumented into this
country, but also the amount of work and cooperation that's
done in agriculture as well in places like between Mexico and
the United States, and the amount of trade and consumer goods
and commerce that happens in these areas.
And so we went and we visited the site where the new Mexico
City Embassy was supposed to be built. And I understand that
there are a lot of consulates in this area because of the
amount of commerce and trade along with individuals that go on
in these areas.
So I wanted to ask--and I think, Mr. Moser, you would be
the appropriate person--the three consulates in dangerous areas
near the border, Tijuana, Juarez, Monterrey, they've all
recently been completed in 2008, 2011, and 2014 respectively.
Is that correct?
Mr. Moser. Yes, that's Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and
Monterrey.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. And all of these three consulates meet
security standards?
Mr. Moser. Ma'am, I cannot build a building without Mr.
Starr's explicit approval.
Ms. Plaskett. So Mr. Starr, did they meet your approval?
Mr. Starr. Yes, they do.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. And there's another consulate that's
currently under construction that's estimated to be completed
in 2017. Mr. Starr, is that correct? Is that accurate?
Mr. Starr. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. And then this consulate in Matamoros and the
Embassy in Mexico City are also supposed to soon be under
construction?
Mr. Moser. Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
Ms. Plaskett. The four remaining consulates are in the site
acquisition phase for new locations, correct?
Mr. Moser. That's correct, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. And as for the completion timelines, when we
travel to Mexico City, they were told that the Matamoros
consulate was estimated to be completed in 2019 and Mexico City
Embassy estimated to be finished in 2020. Are those timelines
still in place?
Mr. Moser. Yes, ma'am. They do depend somewhat on Mexico
City's case about when we will receive the clean site.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. And as I recall, the clean site was not
for the entire space. It was for a portion of that embassy?
Mr. Moser. For a very small portion in the southern corner
of the site.
Ms. Plaskett. And do we have an idea when Mexico's--the
government will give that?
Mr. Moser. Ma'am, we are working with our seller in order
to obtain the clean site, and we are working currently on a
timeline for the delivery of that, and we expect it to be
sometime in the fall of 2016.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. And can you explain how State is
responding to the delays in that, aside from just working with
the seller?
Mr. Moser. If you mean how we're responding, I will say
this: You know, we looked for 10 years, over a decade, at 20
different sites in Mexico City to find one that would meet our
very robust and--by this hearing everyone acknowledges--very
important diplomatic platform that we have in Mexico City.
When we finally identified from our seller the Nuevo Blanco
site, which is a short couple mile distance from our current
location, we realized that this would actually fulfill all of
our programmatic needs, from providing an effective platform
for our law enforcement agencies to our traditional diplomatic
activities, to even providing space for a Benjamin Franklin
library, which is very important for our public diplomacy
outreach.
Yes, there have been delays in acquiring the site, but we
still feel that within this timeline that this is sufficient
for us to build a building from the time we receive the site
and get it up and operational. And that construction timeline
is around 50 months.
Ms. Plaskett. And when I talked with the people on the
site, primarily--one of the main reasons why this was such a
great site is because the ability to buy land of that size from
multiple sellers is almost impossible in Mexico City.
Mr. Moser. Yes, ma'am, that is correct. Because, you know--
and one of the things I want to note here, you know, it
would've been--it would've been possible, of course, to find a
greenfield site if we wanted to be well outside of Mexico City.
But to the extent that we need to engage with our
colleagues in the Mexican Government and in businesses, we need
to be in an urban location that really mirrors our present
diplomatic platform.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Thank you so much. I've exhausted my
gracious and generous time.
And thank you, Mr. Chair, for your generosity.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin, Mr. Judd, with you. Is it your
understanding--okay. I know that you said you don't work at the
ports of entry. But is it your understanding that the BCC cards
can be used by individuals illegally to get into the country?
Mr. Judd. The BCC cards, if somebody is not properly
looking and inspecting who the person is, for instance if you
come through the port of entry and you present your card and
they don't look at you and they just swipe it and it's a good
card and they pass you through, absolutely they can do that.
But the cards really are, as Mr. Starr said, they're very
good cards. They're very difficult to duplicate. But if you
have somebody else's cards and they don't properly inspect you,
you could get into the United States.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Is there any evidence, Mr. Starr, that that
has ever happened?
Mr. Starr. Not to my knowledge yet, sir, no.
Mr. Hice. All right. So you would say that no one has ever
entered this country with a stolen card?
Mr. Starr. Sir, that would be very hard to say absolutely.
I would say that----
Mr. Hice. Yes, it would.
Mr. Starr. --it would be very difficult.
Mr. Hice. It would be very difficult. Because from what I
understand that has happened and there are times inspectors
don't check the cards properly so there certainly are occasions
where, as the chairman brought up earlier, they're used as
flash cards.
How often does an individual just flash the card and
they're waived on into the country?
Mr. Starr. Sir, I can only tell you, I spent about 3 hours
at the San Ysidro border crossing with the Homeland Security
personnel that were there. I saw an incredibly dedicated group
of people with very many duplicative stops where they're
checking the people, they check the cars. I can't tell you,
because it's out of--I'm with the State Department, but I have
to tell you I was exceptionally impressed with how good they
were.
Mr. Hice. Did they know you were there?
Mr. Starr. Yes, they did.
Mr. Hice. Okay. That probably has something to do with it.
Is it true that the CBP was only able to read the cards,
the RFID cards about two-thirds of the time?
Mr. Starr. I'm sorry, sir. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Hice. It's my understanding that the cards don't always
work properly. And so my question, ultimately, is coming to if
the cards don't always work properly then the stolen cards
could still be used.
Mr. Harris, you're nodding your head.
Mr. Harris. Well, I didn't notice I was doing that, but----
Mr. Hice. Okay. It appeared to be you were.
Mr. Harris. --it was an accident, I guess.
I'm not a port-of-entry expert but, again, I'll defer to my
area of responsibility in what I'm focused on, which is
targeting the criminal network. I will tell you, through
investigative means I won't talk about here, we're getting much
better at identifying and rooting out those individuals who are
using the border crossing cards for criminal purposes.
We've identified, as a starting point in South Texas, a
little bit less than 1,000 individuals. Probably about half of
those are border crossers. And we're systemically removing the
cards from those individuals when they cross the border. So I
think with the technology that you all have supported us with,
we're much better at being able to identify the people who are
using the cards for illicit purposes versus for legitimate
reasons.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So none of you have any awareness of the
RFID cards not working?
Mr. Starr. No, sir, I'm not aware that they're not working.
I think we have a very high degree of confidence in the card
and a very high success rate with that card.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Mr. Starr, do you have any idea how many--
or any of you, for that matter--how many U.S. citizens have
disappeared, have been kidnapped, abducted?
Mr. Starr. I don't have the figures in front of me, sir,
no.
Mr. Hice. Who would have those figures?
Ms. Saarnio. Sir, I have some figures from last year and
this year. If we're talking about U.S. citizens----
Mr. Hice. Correct.
Ms. Saarnio. --we believe from the reports that we have
that in 2014 we had a total case of 146 kidnappings reported,
U.S. citizens. And in this year through September 8, we have
had 64 cases reported.
Mr. Hice. All right. What about other crimes from
disappearances to abductions?
Ms. Saarnio. Other crimes are also down. In terms of
violent crimes, we look at murder cases. Last year we had--
there were about 100 murder cases reported of homicides
involving American citizens. This year we're counting 89 so far
to date.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Is there any evidence of Americans being
targeted?
Ms. Saarnio. Not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is
up.
I would just like to add that I have put forth--Mr. Judd
mentioned a while ago about the horrible crime committed in
Montana after a person was in your hands, and I put forth a
bill, TRAC, which stands for Tracking Re-offending Alien
Criminals, specifically the sex offenders. I would urge my
colleagues to check that out, H.R. 2793, and cosponsor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
And we don't have the--necessarily the proper panelists to
deal with this part of it, but to lead on, to follow up with
what you said, one of the most infuriating parts of this are
the people who are here illegally and commit crimes only to be
released back into the interior of the United States of
America.
For fiscal year 2013 and 2014, the Obama administration
released roughly 66,000 criminal aliens. According to
enforcement and removal operations, there are 925,000 people
with final orders to be removed from the country who have not--
that they haven't been removed.
You know, there are people that are here illegally, and
then there are people that are here illegally and they
committed a crime. And to not focus on those people and make
sure that they leave the country--and then when they do, to
find that a huge percentage of them have to get picked up
coming back across the border, I mean, how do you look people
in the eye and say 925,000 people are here illegally or ordered
to leave the country and they did not.
And then you add on top of that the number of other
criminals, they're in our possession. We have them. They were
caught. They were convicted. And we said, ``Go ahead. You're
released.'' And we have horrific stories in just about every
single State you can think about. And it's just horrendous.
We're now pleased to recognize Mr. Cuellar who lives in
Texas. He's very dedicated on this issue. We appreciate him and
glad to waive him in by unanimous consent. We'll now recognize
him for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me
to be back in my former committee. Thank you and thank the
ranking member also.
I want to thank the witnesses from the State Department.
Thank you for the good job that you do. I know it's a difficult
job, but we appreciate it.
My good friend Robert Harris, who used to live in Laredo,
moved to the northern part of my district of San Antonio. It's
always a good pleasure to see you and all the good work you did
down there.
Mr. Judd, all your men and women that work for Border
Patrol--I mean that work along with you and with Robert and all
that, they do a good job. You know, I think anybody on the
border--as you know, my brother is Border Patrol--I mean, well,
border sheriff should I say down there in the border. So he and
I, you know, we've lived there all my life. Like I said, I
drink the water. I breathe the air down there. My family lives
there. I go back every weekend back to the border. So I do want
to say thank you for all the work that you all do.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I do know there's a couple issues, and
I think there's some things that I would like to work with you,
as we talked a while ago. I want to talk about danger pay. I
think on danger pay, for the folks at the State Department, I
think we need to talk about it. I think that's something that I
think Congress will probably be involved in this issue.
My understanding is you already let some of your employees
know--you haven't let us know, but I can tell you that Congress
will probably have a say so on this. Not that we want to
micromanage, but I think it's part of--at least the
appropriations process will be involved.
The issue of cost of construction--and I understand--I've
been to the one in Mexico. I understand what they're doing over
in Laredo and other parts of the world. I think the cost of
construction is extremely high. Sometimes people, I think, they
charge us just because we're the Federal Government, they
charge us more. I understand all the arguments about security
and you've got to do this. I understand all that, but I still
think they're a little high.
On the issues of closing the consulate, Mr. Chairman, I
think we definitely disagree on that. I don't think we ought to
close the consulates. Let me just try to address, Mr. Chairman,
if you allow me just a few minutes beyond my 5 minutes, since I
think everybody's gone now except you and I. Let me talk about
the border. I want to go from the border and then go into
Mexico.
If you look at the FBI statistics, the border crime rate or
the national crime rate is about 4.5 murders per 100,000.
Laredo, my hometown, is about 1.5 murders per 100,000. You take
the border crime rate, it's lower than the national crime rate
using FBI stats, murder, assaults, rapes, you know, name them.
If you look at the top ten cities with the highest murder
rates in the U.S. for 100,000 population, none of them are on
the border. None of them are on the border. If you look at one
of the NGOs that looked at the top 50 cities with the highest
homicides per 100,000, and if you look at it, you know, you
have San Pedro Sula--this is from the year 2011 to 2014--number
one is in Honduras, San Pedro Sula, Honduras. You had Acapulco,
number three, 104 murders for 100,000. The number one was about
171 murders per 100,000.
Then you go on--sorry if there's anybody--any of my
colleagues--San Luis was number 19. And then you had Detroit,
number 22. Then you had Juarez, who the numbers I've gone down
was number 27. Then you had the Nuevo Laredo, number 34. Then
you had Baltimore number 40, and then go all the way down to
Cuernavaca in Mexico on that.
So, again, I would ask you to look at some of these numbers
because there's always the reality and the perception. And
being on the border, I'll be the first one to say, Mr.
Chairman, you know, there are problems like any other city, but
it's not the way some people paint it to be.
Travel warnings, again, if we go based on travel warnings
that I--we pulled out the travel warnings that the State
Department has. Yes, I do see Mexico here, but I do see so many
other countries where there's travel warnings. And if we go on
the basis of travel warning, Mr. Chairman, I think we probably
have to close consulates.
And there's two and-a-half pages of countries that we
probably have to include, including one of the ones that we're
dealing with this week or maybe I just saw a note that we might
postpone the Israel issue. Even the West Bank and Gaza, there's
a travel warning there on that. So I can go on two and-a-half
pages of countries if we happen to go on that.
Why do we need consulates on that even in places like
Mexico? Two reasons: One is the trade and the relations that we
have, but the other one has to do with immigration itself
first.
Before I go on that, let me just talk about Mexico. Before
we did plan Merida, and in 2008 we worked with Ambassador
Garza, President Bush, Roberta Jacobson, which I'm hoping will
become--will soon be the Ambassador of Mexico. Mr. Chairman,
she's a good lady to know. I think you might know her. She'll
be a great Ambassador to Mexico.
We were giving Mexico $36 million a year, while we give
certain countries like Israel $3.1 billion a year. And here is
Mexico, which is one of our greatest trading partners. Mr.
Chairman, I think you highlighted some of the numbers. But let
me talk about Laredo where you and Blake--and I'm sorry I
couldn't be there. I was bringing my little girl up to
Washington the day you were up here.
But Laredo, for example, handles about 40 percent of all
the trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Twelve thousand trailers
a day that we have there. If you put the trucks, line them up,
up and down the border, on the day basis, all the trucks Laredo
on 1 day would go from Laredo to a little bit south of San
Antonio. You put all the trucks on a monthly basis going
through just Laredo, it will go from Laredo all the way to La
Paz, Bolivia.
And if you go on the number of trucks that pass Laredo on a
year, they almost will wrap around the world twice. So it gives
you the half trillion dollars that we have of trade every day.
Shows you why Mexico is so important to us.
And by the way, one more for the folks that want to push
Mexico away, if an end port comes in from China, it has about a
4 percent American parts on it. If something comes in from
Canada, our number one trading partner, will have about 25
percent parts. But if something comes in from Mexico, an import
comes in from Mexico, it will have 40 percent American parts
with it. So that shows the connection that we have with Mexico.
Trade. Let me go into immigration, part of it. Robert, you
and I spoke a lot--Mr. Harris, we spoke a lot about the
unaccompanied kids that came in last year on that. We've seen
the numbers gone down, Mr. Chairman. They've gone down. They're
about half. But, again, we can add more Border Patrol--and I
agree adding more Border Patrol. I want to see more men and
women in blue, which are the customs officers. But if you look
at something that has happened, I've always said that we can't
play defense on the 1 yard line, which is called the U.S.
border.
We spend about $18 billion for border security across the
Nation. If we just play a little different defense on the 20-
yard line--and last year the appropriations, we added--I think
we worked with you all--we added about $80 million to help
Mexico secure the southern border with Guatemala.
We always talk about southern border, but we ought to look
at the southern border with Mexico. If you look at it, from
October 2014 to April 2015, Mexico apprehended over 92,000
Central American migrants, 20,000 more than we do in the U.S.,
70,000. So if we would have--if Mexico would allow those
92,000, Border Patrol would have been dealing with those folks
a lot more.
So Mr. Chairman, I do understand that we have issues in
Mexico. There's no ifs. But we need to work with them.
Construction costs, I agree; I think they're a little high. We
can work on that. Closing the consulates, bad mistake. Danger
pay, Mr. Chairman, I want to work with you because I think we
need to talk about. There are certain parts of Mexico where I
think they deserve danger pay.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for allowing me to be
back in my former committee.
And to all the witnesses, thank you so much for all of--for
all the good work that you do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I'll now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I've been in another hearing so I hope
I don't repeat some questions.
First of all, I want to point out that overall, you know,
we're kind of highlighting Mexico here. And just reviewing the
murder rates around the country, Mexico was far from the most
violent country in the world, right? I mean, you have countries
like Jamaica or El Salvador that are maybe twice the murder
rate or Honduras which is four times the murder rate of Mexico.
But Mexico does have a high murder rate. I think it's about
four times--over four times the American rate. Five times--I
say four times the American rate. I wonder if some of you could
maybe comment on the differences in some cities compared to
other cities and whether you think it is right now particularly
dangerous in these cities with the higher rates themselves.
Mr. Starr. Sir, I think the Embassy in Mexico City and the
different types of agencies that are represented there closely
follow where we have rising narcotrafficking drug violence. And
I think that's what fuels a lot of the murder rates.
As we said earlier, you know, 25 million Americans visit
Mexico every single year. Very few of those people have any
type of problem there. You know, tourism is a very big
business. We're acutely aware that certain places where the
drug cartels, either one is trying to take over another or
there's a split in the organization, and that's what happened
in Matamoros over the last year essentially, the violence can
certainly spike.
I think we do try to differentiate between those places
where the violence is going up and make sure that that's
reflected in our warnings and tell people that. I think we try
to be accurate about what the real threats are to Americans
there and give them the general idea. But it is not a level of
violence that is all over Mexico. It is in different cities and
primarily where the drug traffickers are contesting territory.
Mr. Grothman. Do we have a facility in Acapulco?
Mr. Starr. We have a consular agency there, right? Not a
consulate. We have a consular agent there.
Mr. Grothman. That's an example of one, just pulling it up,
that looks to be a very, very dangerous city. But could you let
me know, I mean, is that like some American cities where
overall it's dangerous but there are a lot of areas that are
okay? I mean, because that is one, just pulling it up, that is
just, you know, I think the murder rate is like three times
that in Milwaukee where I'm near, and that's not a very well
run city.
But you do feel that--I mean, do you feel our people are
safe in a city like that? If you stick in the right areas, or
is it----
Ms. Saarnio. Sir, we provide guidance in our travel
advisories by state and even by city, and there is specific
guidance for Acapulco. I'm not sure over there what it is right
now. Typically, we advise people, you know, stay off the
streets at night in these dangerous places. Stay closer to
home. If we know of a particular type of violence that's going
to occur, we'll issue a warning.
So I think, you know--we think it's manageable, but we do
have to monitor the situations, and we have to monitor the risk
and take measures to mitigate against those risks when they
happen.
Mr. Grothman. Just by point of reference, of all the
Americans working in Mexico right now who work for the American
Government, how many work there overall and how many have been
victims, say, of some sort of crime in the last year?
Ms. Saarnio. We have 2,800 employees, that includes our
locally-engaged staff as well, and the mission in Mexico. I
don't have a number for how many have been involved in crimes,
but it's minimal. I don't know that we have those at hand right
now.
Mr. Starr. I think since 2010, we've had two Americans that
were killed.
Ms. Saarnio. Since 1985.
Mr. Starr. Right.
Mr. Grothman. Since 1985----
Ms. Saarnio. Two Americans have been killed.
Mr. Grothman. Since when?
Ms. Saarnio. Since 1985.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So two Americans have been killed out
of a little under 3--when we have 3,000 employees. We've had
about two murders in the last 30 years is what you're saying?
Ms. Saarnio. That's right.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you.
I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Few kind of tie-up questions and then we'll be done here.
Ambassador Moser, in Mexico City, the last number we had is
that we were planning in the new embassy--and I recognize that
it's behind schedule--we were planning on 1,335 desks. The
costs had gone from the original estimate of $577 million to
$943 million. Any adjustments in those, or are those still the
numbers that you're working with?
Mr. Moser. Sir, those are correct, but I will note that the
original figure, the $550 million figure that we initially
reported to Congress did not include the site acquisition cost.
And that's the reason. So the real difference is about 700
versus 900, and that does reflect the 40 percent growth in
staffing.
Chairman Chaffetz. And it's real dollars. You know, every
time we spend dollars here we're pulling money out of American
people's pockets to give it to somebody else. And so the
concern is you have a $200 million growth there. You were
looking at roughly just shy of $250 million for the building,
the construction of Matamoros and the Nuevo Laredo facilities.
That's a huge amount of dollars going out the door, when you
consider that Matamoros is looking at 103 desks and Nuevo
Laredo is 88 desks. And we're going to spend a quarter of a
billion dollars.
Mr. Moser. Sir, if I could just make one comment on that.
Chairman Chaffetz. Sure.
Mr. Moser. I too am very, very concerned about the cost of
these facilities, and we are always focused on the cost. But it
is true that it does take more money per capita or per desk to
build a smaller facility than it does a large one. Because as
I've said, the first point of all of this is your requirements.
What do you have to do. And it's easier to expand a building
and make it bigger to get a per-desk charge than it is.
Chairman Chaffetz. In Monterrey--well, let me jump in here.
Same country, right. In Monterrey, $179 million for 199 desks,
but Matamoros, which is 103 desks, is $191 million.
Mr. Moser. Well, as I said, it depends on the requirements
for the various locations. And a smaller number of----
Chairman Chaffetz. Do you make any situation where the cost
has gone down?
Mr. Moser. Yes, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. What is it?
Mr. Moser. Well, there are places where it's surprisingly
inexpensive in----
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah, but where is the place where the
cost estimate went down, came in under budget or even on
budget?
Mr. Moser. I'll have to get back to you.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah, exactly. Because we looked at
this. The reason that we are going to continue to focus on this
is every single thing we've done since the time I was elected,
since the President took place--took office, the same time,
every one of these facilities has gone up in costs. Every one
of them. And they're not even close. We didn't come up with
those estimates. The State Department came up with those
statements. And now we're seeing this double-digits percentage
growth by the billions of dollars. I mean, by the billions.
Let me keep going because we are trying to wrap this up. In
Nuevo Laredo, when I went and visited the site, beautiful site,
I can understand the location, the proximity to Laredo, Texas,
I get it. And I do believe that they need a new facility. The
one they're in currently is old. I understand that. But on that
site there were living quarters that were a potential living
quarters for the consulate general.
The recommendation for the people on the ground who are
working there was to keep that facility. And yet, OBO said,
``No, we're not going to keep that facility,'' and they
destroyed it. I have questions on follow-up as to why was it
destroyed? Why didn't it meet the specifications? And number
two is, have you figured out and determined where the consulate
general is actually going to live in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. Moser. Sir, there's a very good line of inquiry. And
let me explain that. That in that particular instance, we had a
smallish site, somewhere around a little--I think a little bit
less than 5 acres. And in order for us to situate our building
on the site and have all of the required setbacks and all the
required security requirements that we would have to have,
according to our overseas security standards, that we had to
demolish the existing residence on the site.
Now, where will that person go? We will obtain appropriate
housing for the principal officer, and that's what we do in
countries all over the world.
Chairman Chaffetz. Here's the concern: The cost has grown;
it's under construction; the site has been--but this is a
pretty--there are only 88 desks, okay. It's a smaller facility.
The consulate general and his facilities and his ability or her
ability to conduct work on behalf of the United States is
pivotal. And here we are, you know, into September 2015, and
you all haven't figured out where he's going to live. It's a
pretty big, important question.
So----
Mr. Moser. Well, he does have a residence now, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes, understood, on the old compound.
But you have to travel, as I did, we had something like 30
armed guards escort us from the one facility to the next
facility. You had to have the Mexican National Army lead us in
a convoy with, you know, some rather large guns and whatnot
ready to go at any moment. It's a very dangerous situation.
So I just don't understand why we're this far into it.
Because there's going to be a cost. And so when we look at $154
million, that doesn't include the site acquisition or
development or purchase of something for the consulate general,
does it?
Mr. Moser. No, sir, it doesn't.
Chairman Chaffetz. Have you informed Congress that this
number is shy of what it needs to be?
Mr. Moser. Sir, we usually find principal officers or fund
principal officers' residence out of our leasehold account,
which is also appropriation from Congress. And we do have a
dialogue with our appropriators about how much these individual
residences cost.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. It's amazing that you get down
there and see that there's no plan and no--other than, ``Hey,
we're going to continue to look at it.'' To suggest that they
took 10 years to try to find a facility to locate the Mexico
City Embassy. I mean, that's an embarrassment. Ten years?
Mr. Moser. Sir, to find a big enough site where we can put
a facility that really accomplishes the diplomatic goals, we
are trying to----
Chairman Chaffetz. You bought a site that's toxic. And by
the Mexican Government it's so toxic you can't build there. And
there are hundreds of people that are going to suffer and live
in inadequate working quarters.
Again, I want to try to wrap up here. When will the new
danger pay--when will this new program be implemented? Has it
been announced?
Mr. Moser. It has been announced, sir, but I'll turn that
over to my colleagues.
Chairman Chaffetz. When does that take place?
Mr. Starr. The announcements went out to the post, I
believe, last week.
Congressman, I appreciate how much you're concerned about
the danger pay. I can have staff come up here and work with
your staff and explain how we do this and how we grade these
things, if that would be helpful.
Chairman Chaffetz. We'll try it again. You and I tried it
in a classified setting, and it didn't go so well, did it?
Mr. Starr. No, sir, we had our differences.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah. And so this is not a new topic
that I sprung on you here at this--you knew I was going to
bring it up.
Mr. Starr. I know that, sir. But I think if we could show
you detailed how we actually look at each post, what the
ratings are, what we do to go into it, and I think my staff
working with your staff could give you----
Chairman Chaffetz. I look forward to seeing that formula.
For those men and women who work in Mexico, who have loved ones
that are here in the United States and their husband or wife or
sibling or whoever, daughter, whatever is working in Mexico,
and their pay just got cut, you can look at the Obama
administration, you could look at Secretary Kerry, and you
could look to that organization, because it wasn't us
Republicans. Don't tell us that it was--you were tight on
budgets.
Mr. Starr. This was not about cutting any benefits.
Chairman Chaffetz. They did get their--are you telling me
that----
Mr. Starr. Matamoros went up. Matamoros went up.
Chairman Chaffetz. Are there people working in Mexico who
earn less than they did before?
Mr. Starr. Yes, some.
Chairman Chaffetz. That's my problem.
Mr. Starr. But it's based on the conditions on the ground,
sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah. Can they still--in Nuevo Laredo
can they walk outside of the consulate? No, they can't.
Mr. Starr. No. They can be across the border and be in a
Wal-Mart and be in a Dairy Queen very quickly.
Chairman Chaffetz. Really?
Mr. Starr. Yes, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah, I can't wait to play that video
for those people working there. Shame on you for----
Mr. Starr. Sir, I've walked that ground. I've talked with
those people. I look at our security every single day. There is
nobody that is more concerned with the security of our people
overseas than I am. Their allowances----
Chairman Chaffetz. I don't agree with you.
Mr. Starr. I'm sorry, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. I have been there. I have talked to
those people.
Mr. Starr. Sir, I start every morning----
Chairman Chaffetz. Don't tell me that--don't get on your
high horse, because you just cut their pay. I didn't do that;
you did.
Mr. Starr. Sir----
Chairman Chaffetz. And when I went down there, I didn't
know that this was an issue. They brought it up.
Mr. Starr. Sir----
Chairman Chaffetz. And we sat them down in the room, and to
think if it's fair. It's not safe. When I talk to the people
who were there working in that facility, it's so dangerous they
can't go outside.
Mr. Starr. I start every single day looking at the threats
to our people worldwide.
Chairman Chaffetz. And you're getting Mexico wrong. You're
getting Mexico wrong.
Mr. Starr. No, sir, I'm not. And I'll bring staff up and
we'll work with your staff.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yeah, you can bring staff up all you
want. I can tell you, I have been there. I have looked at those
statistics. I have briefed with the people there. You cut their
pay, and I think it's wrong. And I think people on both sides
of this aisle think it's wrong.
It was petty. It was not useful. It was not productive.
It's cut morale. It was unnecessary, and I think it should be
changed. I really do. I really do. It's not for a lack of
appropriation. It's the management of the State Department.
That's the question here. That's the question.
We're going to continue to work on that. There are a lot of
other issues. I do believe we have to engage in meaningful
immigration reform. There has to be a legal, lawful way to get
here. If you don't fix legal immigration, you're never, ever
going to solve this problem. One of the issues we need to work
on is the asylum reform. I actually have an asylum reform bill.
In conclusion, I cannot thank the men and women of the--
particularly the Border Patrol for all they do and the good,
hard work that they do. I have been down there. It's one of my
joys to go out with them in the Ajo district. I've been out
there with them as we chase people coming across the border.
You sit there and just watch them all day long coming across,
and these people apprehend them in a very professional manner.
They work hard. It's hard, very dangerous work. Can't thank
them enough for the good work that the people do in the Customs
and Border Patrol.
ERO has an exceptionally difficult mission. ICE is doing
some very important work. There are good people doing work all
across the border.
And my point, sir, is with those people working in the
State Department, they too have a vital mission. And it's just
unacceptable to us. It's just mind-boggling that there would
knowingly and willingly cut their pay, telling them that it's
more safe when there are conditions there that are not
conducive. To say that, oh, they can just go across the border
so they can get to a Dairy Queen, yeah, that doesn't cut it.
That's not acceptable.
With that, I appreciate all of you for participating today.
I think this was a good hearing. This hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[all]